Eurojust

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 General Committees

[Mr Hurd]

I am struck that there appears to be a level of cross-party consensus on this matter that I have yet to witness in the main Chamber on Brexit. I welcome that. Underlying that is, I think, a recognition that no party or Member of Parliament wants to risk losing capability when it comes to security and the No. 1 priority of any Government, which is the enforcement of the law and the protection of our citizens. I welcome both sets of questions and the recognition of the positive decision to opt in and of the wider agenda to try to secure a security partnership that, as far as possible, maintains our existing capabilities. That is our explicit objective.

The hon. Member for Torfaen asked about planning for the next phase. At the moment, as he would expect, the immediate priority is planning for a no-deal scenario, because the risks have risen and the consequences are potentially severe in terms of loss of capability. He will understand and I hope appreciate that the priority of the Government is to prioritise no-deal planning, not least an agreement on Eurojust or any of the other co-operation mechanisms on security, so that we have more time to establish that. A green light and a signal from the Commission is also required to start to engage in the negotiations, and, for reasons we understand, that has yet to materialise. It is fair to say, if the starting point is a standard third country agreement, that we would hope to do better than that.

I make the same point as I do in the context of Europol, for example, where there are some parallels by virtue of our long history inside the agencies and our weight within them. I gave data that made it clear how important we were in Eurojust, in terms of both requests for support and requests for support from other states, and in Europol we are the second biggest contributor of data. We start those conversations with, “What does the deal look like after we leave? Are we third country or third country plus?” We will argue for third country plus. I have spoken to a number of interior Ministers on this journey, and it is clear to me, certainly in the case of Europol, that there is a clear desire for as much continuity as possible, in recognition of the weight and the important value that the UK adds to those agencies.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East raised an extremely important point about whether we can do this and how consistent it is with the withdrawal agreement. Our position is that we can. As noted by the Committee, article 127(4) provides that the UK,

“shall not participate in any enhanced cooperation in relation to which authorisation was granted after the date of entry into force of this Agreement”.

However, article 4 of the opt-in protocol provides that the procedure for approval set out in article 331 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union on enhanced co-operation applies mutatis mutandis to the UK opt-in request. Therefore, the UK may only opt in if the Commission or Council approves the request. Here is the essence of it: article 4 uses the process set out in article 331, but this does not in itself constitute enhanced co-operation. We therefore consider that article 127(4) of the withdrawal agreement would not affect the operation of article 4 of the opt-in protocol. That is our understanding and we believe that is the understanding of the Commission; we are just waiting for that in writing, but it forms the basis of why we are proceeding as we are.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East asked about timing. Assuming there is an implementation period, our interpretation is that the Commission has four months to confirm the UK’s request to participate in the Eurojust regulations. That would obviously take us into the period after 31 March, but, for the reasons that I have set out, we think that what we propose is entirely valid, and that, in our view, is the view of the Commission as well.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I want to pick up points raised by all three contributors, and especially to echo my colleague on the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Luton North, and to pick up two of the points made by the Committee in the summary of its conclusions on page 5, paragraph 1.18.

I am grateful to the Minister for his letter, which arrived over the weekend. First, how will operational co-operation differ in practice once we have left? How will it compare with the UK’s current level of co-operation with Eurojust? He has touched on that point, but if he can expand on his comments, I would be grateful. Secondly, will opting in make it more likely that we will secure better terms than other third countries once EU law ceases to apply? If he could address those two points, I would be grateful.

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for those additional questions. I welcome his contribution and, indeed, the Committee’s scrutiny of the process and the calling of the debate. It is extremely important that these decisions and processes are scrutinised properly and that the Executive are held to account, particularly at this pivotal, highly emotive stage of the negotiations and the reshaping of our relationship with our European partners.

The key word here is “co-operation”. We are seeking to maximise continuity, and these are co-operation mechanisms that work. They are valued by our partners and are an integral part of our collective effort to protect our citizens and pursue justice. We have invested a lot of time and money over the years in building these mechanisms, and it is our shared desire to continue them. That is my experience from direct conversations with other interior Ministers. I have yet to meet one who does not want to continue the way we are. Obviously, politics might override that in the short term; none of us can know how this will work out. In seeking to opt in, the UK Government’s primary motive is to seek continuity in the existing arrangements. We recognise that if we opted out, we would be out, and we feel that the opportunity costs of that are too high.

My hon. Friend and others asked about operational co-operation on standard third country terms and about what that might look like in the future. Our White Paper, published in July 2018, outlined that if the UK’s participation in Eurojust were limited to the existing third country terms, there would be a reduced capability for the UK and the EU to co-operate in tackling serious cross-border and organised crime. We would have a reduced role in operational activity at Eurojust, and there would be limitations to the extent to which Crown Prosecution Service and Crown Office prosecutors could work with and at Eurojust.

It would not be a disaster—other areas of our security participation toolkit would be more damaged by our being limited to third country status—but our starting point is that we should try to maintain, as far as possible, the capabilities that we have, because that is where we have a mutual interest with our European partners. We will therefore go into these negotiations with a determination to move beyond standard third country status. We are not a standard third country: we helped to build these platforms, we helped to fund them and we are core to their success. That will be the core of our argument to the Commission as and when we get to that point.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Friday 11th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), and his “Reasons to be Cheerful Part 2”. It sounded as though he might have needed a “Reasons to be Cheerful Part 3” to complete his remarks, and I am very sorry that I missed his “Reasons to be Cheerful Part 1”.

That actually relates to my first point: I have been struck by the tone of today’s debate. Perhaps it is because today is a Friday, but the tone has been rather measured and constructive. In that regard, I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who made a point that was picked up by my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) and for Henley (John Howell). Although I disagree with the conclusion reached by all three of them, they were absolutely and fundamentally right about the importance of the language and the tone that we use in this place, and I commend them for that.

I also agree with the comment of the Prime Minister—and I acknowledge her hard work and endeavour in getting us this far—that

“the British people just want us to get on with it.”

In that, she is absolutely right. My constituents have been saying the same for a number of months, if not years. I certainly did not come into politics to bang on about Europe, or to squabble about the EU endlessly. Sadly, however, this proposal does not get on with it. That is my first and fundamental objection, and it relates to the backstop, because we cannot unilaterally get out of it. It is about ceding control and sovereignty, not taking back control. We will be reliant on a co-operative EU in order to exit from it, which is the precise opposite of “getting on with it”. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) said in that context.

People say that we will not inevitably end up in the backstop, that we may never get there, that we could extend the implementation period. However, the Father of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), confirmed at Prime Minister’s questions that these negotiations will take years. On the same day, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) cited evidence that it could well be the mid-2020s before a deal is secured. This deal prolongs uncertainty. Businesses are looking for certainty, and it does not give them that. The Attorney General confirmed in his advice that there is a risk of

“protracted and repeating rounds of negotiations.”

We cannot get out of this of our own volition; that is my first and fundamental objection to it.

My second objection is to do with the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is technically correct that we will not be subject to the jurisdiction of the CJEU, but under the proposed treaty it will still retain a significant and prominent role in the movement of goods, VAT and excise, agriculture and the environment. Further, under article 174 of the proposed agreement, when any interpretation of EU law is in question the CJEU will be the final arbiter. The decision will be referred to it and will be binding. As we have seen in the recent judgment in relation to revocation of article 50, it is a highly political court, and this proposal does not rid us of its shackles.

Thirdly, and just as importantly, although I will not dwell on it at length, this proposal threatens the integrity of the United Kingdom. I am a Unionist and a member of the Conservative and Unionist party, and the proposal introduces a separate regulatory regime for Northern Ireland. For me, that is a fundamental problem.

I am a serial loyalist; I have never rebelled against the Government in my admittedly very few—three and a half—years in this place, and I do so with a heavy heart, but with a clear head that this is not the right deal.

In the time remaining, I want to make two further points. The Prime Minister has rightly been stepping up plans and preparations for no deal, or for a WTO Brexit—or a clean, global Brexit as I like to call it. So we will be ready; it is not my preferred outcome, but if it happens we will be ready because we have good Ministers—the Foreign Secretary is in his place—and good civil servants who will be ready and prepared. We are an ingenious nation and we will make sure we are ready.

Finally, the Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that we will have no second referendum and there will be no extension beyond 29 March. As other hon. Members have mentioned, she has been firm in that, and she is absolutely right. There is a huge risk that the political trust between politicians and the public will be broken if that is not the case, and the Prime Minister is right to stand firm.

Immigration: DNA Tests

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. Let me refer again to the scheme to help Afghan nationals. Afghanistan is a good example of a clear conflict zone. Many Afghan nationals, such as interpreters, help British forces, and we owe them a duty of respect and have a responsibility to them. I had already made changes a few months ago to welcome more of them to settle in our country, if they wish, and from a safety point of view we must help in such cases. Under that scheme, they should not have been told that this was mandatory. Once the system is explained, people might believe that providing DNA will help them and then choose to do so. In those cases involving Afghan nationals from that conflict zone, given the work they did for this country, we can even look to pay for that, but the key point is that the process should always be optional for them.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I welcome the news that my right hon. Friend has set up an urgent review, but given that DNA evidence has been sought from applicants under successive Governments, does he agree that this issue should not be politicised, as happens all too often?

[Sajid Javid]

I agree, but a decision on whether an issue is politicised cannot be taken by just one side of the House. This is an important point, and it is worth reminding ourselves that after the wrongs done to the Windrush generation were first discovered, a review of historical cases over the summer showed that almost half those cases in which people suffered detriment took place under the previous Labour Government. Since then, there has been a much more co-operative approach across the House. I think that that is what the public want to see, and it is what they would want to see in this case as well.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Johnson]

I agree. Terrorism is a global threat. It affects us in this country, but, as we remember on 11 September, it has affected the United States, and it continues to affect countries throughout the world. It is absolutely right that we share information with trusted countries. We have the “Five Eyes” security grouping, and we also have the EU. It is important that we work with all our international friends to keep our country safe.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It was said earlier from a sedentary position, “Well, that’s what the EU is for.” Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the whole international community? We are leaving the EU, but does that mean that this is any less serious a subject? As my hon. Friend has said, we will continue to work with the EU even after we leave.

[Dr Johnson]

I agree absolutely.

Foreign Fighters and the Death Penalty

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

No, I did not say that. This is a Foreign Office-Home Office-led decision of the two Ministers, so quoting from the Foreign Office I would say that the true guidance for the policy is in line with the OSJA guidance.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

One of the biggest challenges we face today as a society is countering violent extremism. What is my right hon. Friend’s Department doing to strengthen the sentencing framework for terrorism-related offences?

[Mr Wallace]

The new Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill increases some of the maximum sentences available. On the wider area of my hon. Friend’s point about prevention, that is why we embrace and promote the Prevent policy in Contest.

Commercial Sexual Exploitation

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Shuker]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I will go on to say, and as other hon. Members will set out, one of the biggest single drivers of trafficking into this country and of child sexual exploitation is commercial sexual exploitation, which is why we need to take all measures to tackle it. Central to my argument, however, is the idea that by failing to tackle demand we perpetuate the inequality of focusing on the most visible part of the transaction, rather than on those who create the demand in the first place.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the debate, and the hon. Gentleman on all the work he does with the all-party group. He mentioned consent. There is a parallel issue of choice. Sometimes it is said that there is a choice. Does he agree that there is more to the question of choice than initially meets the eye, and that “choice” is often driven by poverty, addiction or abuse?

[Mr Shuker]

I could not agree more. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. There are all sorts of vulnerabilities that would cause someone who would not normally choose to go into the very violent and difficult world of prostitution to do that, but we must take responsibility for all those issues. Equally, prostitution is not a phenomenon driven by an over-supply of women—I am going to talk in gender terms, because this is a highly gendered phenomenon, although obviously we accept that a wide variety of people are involved. It is fundamentally caused not by an over-supply of people growing up wishing to go into prostitution, but by an over-supply of men who think that it is acceptable to purchase sex and to drive the scale of this trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I commend the speeches of the hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Luton South (Mr Shuker), who are my colleagues in the all-party parliamentary group, and I wholeheartedly support their powerful expressions of support for women who are in prostitution and trapped in prostitution.

Although prostitution is often referred to as the oldest profession, it is more accurately viewed as one of the most enduring forms of exploitation. It has been my privilege to meet and talk with several women who have lived through prostitution. The stories they tell of being treated as an object or commodity, and of feeling that they had no choice but to sell sex in order to survive, are a sobering contrast to the fictional glamour in the popular myths surrounding the industry. As one of those survivors, Rachel Moran, has written in her excellent autobiographical book, “Paid For: My Journey Through Prostitution”:

“I pay no respect or accommodation to the glamorising or sensationalising of prostitution. These are not true depictions of prostitution...My assessment of prostitution and my opinions of it I take from the years I spent enduring it and everything I ever saw, heard, felt, witnessed or otherwise experienced at that time. There was no glamour there. Not even the flicker of it. Not for any of us”.

No one reading Rachel’s book could believe anything other than that women involved in prostitution are abused women; no one could doubt that prostitution is an utterly exploitative experience.

As we have heard, circumstances in early years—such as homelessness, family breakdown, problems with drugs or alcohol, or being in local authority care—are often precursors to young people entering prostitution, which then becomes a trap for years.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I, too, have met Rachel more than once and read her book; it is truly compelling. Will my hon. Friend say a little more about the evidence that we both heard on this issue on the Conservative party human rights commission—that it is wrong to describe prostitution as a genuine choice, because there are so many underlying reasons for it that it would be wrong to say that those in prostitution are there out of choice?

[Fiona Bruce]

Absolutely; I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The argument that women—it is mainly women—who are engaged in prostitution and being paid for sex are consenting is a fallacy. They are never consenting; they are coerced. They are coerced by their circumstances, such as those I have described, and then exploited by those who use them for sex and by the pimps who sell them for sex.

Research for the Scottish Government has shown that

“most respondents who provide services and support to those involved in prostitution emphasised a range of risks and adverse impacts associated with prostitution in the short and longer term in relation to general and mental health, safety and wellbeing and sexual heath.”

The loss of self as a result of being objectified time and time again comes across profoundly when one talks to or about women who have been involved in prostitution. The techniques that they operate to block out from their minds what is happening to them, so that they think of themselves as an object, are so profound that they often cannot then move on with their lives.

Although some British nationals, especially young people, are affected, as we have heard, commercial sexual exploitation now often affects foreign nationals who have been trafficked here and are vulnerable. A Police Foundation study in Bristol found that only 17% of the people providing sexual services in the city’s brothels were British.

Prostitution and the commercial sex industry are intrinsically linked with modem slavery. As we have heard, the market for commercial sex operates as a pull for traffickers and organised crime groups. It is heart-rending when one hears accounts from organisations such as Hope for Justice. I believe that the daily figure of 13 sex buyers a day mentioned by the hon. Member for Rotherham is often a gross underestimate. I remember an account from the founder of Hope for Justice, which rescues trafficked women from prostitution. On one occasion he was told about a young girl who had been rescued. One day she had decided she would count how many men had abused her that day. After 100 she stopped counting.

To reduce modem slavery we must reduce the demand that creates the market in which so many people are exploited. That is why I support what has been said here today. At the same time, we must also provide real exit routes for women who are trapped in prostitution. It is not enough to say, “You can have health checks and clean condoms.” They need genuine opportunities to gain education, to be rehoused, and to understand how they can support themselves in a different way, because they often see themselves as having no alternatives at all.

The Conservative party human rights commission, which I chair, is in the middle of its own inquiry into the different legal approaches to prostitution and the impact they have on the fight against modern slavery. I am very pleased to see the evidence coming through now from the countries where “end demand” legislation has been implemented, including in Northern Ireland, where the law is fairly new. The police have found the offence much more effective than the partial offence that existed before, which we still have here. I congratulate the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland on securing its first conviction two weeks ago in a contested court case following the implementation of the new law.

The culture has been changed in Sweden, as we have heard. It is now considered almost demeaning to pay for sex there. Only a minority of men in this country pay for sexual services—only about 11% of men have ever paid for sex and only 3.6% have done so in recent years, according to the most recent survey data published. However, their behaviour harms individuals, fuels organised crime and contributes to the global networks of modern slavery.

Many people suggest that the law should not intervene in matters of prostitution. They say that that would stray into regulating the behaviour of consenting adults, but, as we have heard, one of those people, often not an adult, is not consenting. The law needs to be looked at again. If the cost of protecting such extremely vulnerable people from exploitation and modern slavery is to reduce the choices of a small group of people, it is a cost we should be prepared to pay.

I welcome the research that the Government have commissioned into the scale and nature of prostitution in England and Wales, and I commend the Minister for her own interest in the subject. I look forward to the findings of that report. I hope that perhaps during the summer recess the Minister will have an opportunity to read Rachel Moran’s book and that the researchers undertaking work of the inquiry will look at it, too.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak on this issue, which I have a great interest in. I congratulate the hon. Members for Luton South (Mr Shuker) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on setting the scene. I will give the Northern Ireland perspective and describe what we have done legislatively. I suggest the Minister does the same here on the mainland, because it is the way forward.

Two weeks ago a court in Northern Ireland convicted a man in the first case to be contested under the legislation introduced in 2015, under which it is an offence to pay for, or, in this particular case, attempt to pay for, the sexual services of another person. One might be forgiven for thinking it has taken some time for the first conviction to be made, but, in addition to that case, data up to the end of March this year records 13 individuals who have been cautioned or received another discretionary disposal having admitted their guilt.

Would I like to see the Police Service of Northern Ireland making greater use of the offence? Yes, I certainly would, and so would you, Mr Paisley. However, the arrests show that this simple offence is much more effective than the more complex offence we had before. Previously our law targeted kerb crawlers who seek to buy sex in public and those who purchase sexual services from a person subjected to force, which are the laws that England and Wales still have. The kerb crawling offence has limitations because it can address only those who seek to purchase sex in a public place, yet research suggests that the majority of prostitution in the UK now happens indoors in brothels, private residences and hotels. The offence that applies where a person is subjected to force is difficult to apply because, although there is no requirement that the offender know about the coercion, there needs to be proof that the coercion is happening, which is not always easy to document in the time required by a relatively low-level offence. PSNI statistics show that no one was arrested or charged for that offence in the whole time that it operated, so the change in legislation has given the PSNI the power it needs to be effective and to change attitudes. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that we need such changes here on the mainland.

[Michael Tomlinson]

One objection to the sex buyer law is that it has been used only in Nordic countries that have a different jurisdiction from our own. The examples that the hon. Gentleman is giving are powerful because they show that our own jurisdiction can cope with such laws and that they work.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I agree wholeheartedly with him.

We changed the law in Northern Ireland because we needed a law that would enable us to tackle the demand for commercial sexual exploitation more effectively. The Northern Ireland Assembly overwhelmingly supported the provision by 81 votes to 10, with the four largest parties in the Assembly—the Democratic Unionist party, Sinn Féin, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Ulster Unionist party—in support. Both Unionists and nationalists supported the legislation. Lord Morrow, who was a Member of the Assembly at the time, was one of those who did the good work.

People are easily moved around the UK, across the border with the Republic of Ireland and more widely within Europe. Germany and the Netherlands, which have legalised prostitution, have become destination countries for so-called sex tourists and also for traffickers and their victims. Legalisation has not stamped out organised crime or trafficking. It has not worked. The change that we have had in Northern Ireland is needed here. Fighting sex trafficking by using the criminal justice system might even be harder in the legalised prostitution sector.

Some might ask, “Why tackle the demand at all?” The simple answer is that without the demand for paid sex there would be no need for a continuing supply of women tricked, bullied or forced by circumstances into prostitution. Reducing the demand is the key to reducing the number of people who end up in commercial sexual exploitation and is the key to reducing human trafficking.

I want to quote from a lady who addressed the Northern Ireland Assembly and came here as well. Her name is Mia de Faoite. She spoke powerfully at an event in Stormont to mark the coming into force of the offence of purchasing sex, and spoke in this House as well. She said:

“It is my firm belief that everybody on this Island be they born here or not is entitled to live a dignified life, and prostitution is the systematic stripping of one’s human dignity and I know that because I have lived and witnessed it, and it must no longer be tolerated and now in Northern Ireland the next generation of girls, will grow up knowing that the bodies to which they have been born into are respected and at no time will they ever be up for sale.”

She spoke at an event that took place here in Westminster, which I co-hosted with the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the former Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). Women and girls across the whole of the UK deserve the same freedom. Northern Ireland has led the way in the British Isles. The Republic of Ireland followed suit, and it is now time for England, Scotland and Wales to join us. Taking action to tackle the demand for commercial sexual exploitation is the first step, and I encourage the Minister to follow the actions of those in Northern Ireland. That is the way forward.

Cannabis-based Medicines

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

Yes, it is. It has an important role to play, which is to advise Ministers on the scheduling of drugs. If we are to change a scheduling, it is important to listen to its point of view.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary set out at the start of his statement that

“cannabis can harm people’s mental and physical health and damage communities.”

I also welcome the fact that any change will be science-led. Will he also look at international examples? He mentioned Canada, where a law was introduced very recently. Will he see what works—and, importantly, what does not work—with that law, in particular, because the evidence is mixed?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will certainly be looking at international evidence. A lot has changed in the UK since the current rules were put in place, and we will take all that into account.

Windrush

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

No, it is not that policy. To be fair, I was in Croydon today talking to some of the caseworkers, and I challenged them on whether they would expect that before we put in these arrangements, and they said no, they would not. It has not been the case that people with this sort of evidence have been expected to produce that in the past. I hope that that message will go out loud and clear to the hon. Lady’s constituents and others: they do not need that sort of information and, yes, for the ’73 to ’88 cohort, they, too, will be able to access the new service, which will help to link in with other Government Departments to assist with swifter resolution.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I welcome the statement from the Home Secretary, particularly her personal commitment to resolving the issue and the steps that she has put in place. Does she not agree that it is sensible in principle that checks should be made on people seeking homes, jobs and healthcare?

[Amber Rudd]

Of course, those checks should be put in place—my hon. Friend is absolutely right. They were put in place by Labour in 2008, and other checks were put in place even earlier than that. It is the case in most European countries that if someone goes for a job or rents a property, they have to show evidence. The purpose of the accelerated, swift process is to make sure that the people who are so valued by this country have the evidence that they need.

Immigration White Paper

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

It is important to note that we will want to register those who are eligible for settled status as soon as possible so that their status can be confirmed. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there will be a period during which it will be difficult to differentiate, which is why we are going to use the two-year period to make sure we can do that as seamlessly as we possibly can.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Just in case anyone—either inside the Chamber or beyond—has inexplicably missed what my right hon. Friend has said, will she reaffirm the Government’s commitment to leaving the single market and leaving the customs union, and that this will ensure that we have control over EU immigration in the future?

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend is, of course, right. We intend to leave the single market and the customs union, and to retain the control over our immigration system that our citizens told us that they wanted back in 2016.

Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 2nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

Given that there are 3.2 million cohabiting opposite-sex couples, it is a very small proportion of those who might be affected, so this is unfinished business. More than 80,000 people have signed a petition in favour of the change, and that is a small indication of the demand that exists.

There are three main rationales for supporting the measure. First, it will correct the unintended but glaring inequality that results from the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, whereby same-sex couples are entitled to continue in a civil partnership, take up a civil partnership or enjoy the recent extension of marriage while opposite-sex couples have only the single option of conventional marriage, albeit by a larger range of religious institutions. That is not fair, and it gives rise to an inequality in an Act that was billed as promoting equality.

Secondly, a positive reason for pushing forward with the Bill is family stability. As a former children’s Minister, that has always been at the top of my priority list. According to the latest estimate, there are some 3.2 million cohabiting opposite-sex couples in this country. That is more than 4,900 couples per parliamentary constituency, and it is about double the figure that was reported just 15 years ago. Those couples are responsible for more than 2 million children. Some 53% of birth registrations are to married parents, but about a third are to unmarried parents who are living together.

Cohabitation is the fastest growing form of family in this country, whether we like it or not. We need to recognise that our society is changing and we need to adapt in order to promote family stability, in whatever form, to provide a continuum that gives children the best and most stable start in life.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

On that point, has my hon. Friend seen the families manifesto by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce)? It raises the importance of stability in the family for bringing up children. Does he support that manifesto?

[Tim Loughton]

Not only do I support it, but I think my name is on it. My proposal will help to create greater stability, with the ultimate aim of giving the 2.2 million children in such relationships the very best opportunities and the best start in life.

The Centre for Social Justice has calculated that the cost of family breakdown to this country is some £48 billion a year, or some 2.5% of gross domestic product. That is a big and growing problem, which is socially and financially costly for our society. Fewer than one in 10 married parents have split up by the time their child reaches the age of five, compared with more than one in three of those who are cohabiting but not married, and 75% of family breakdowns involving children under five result from the separation of unmarried parents. The CSJ has produced a raft of statistics showing that a child who is not in a two-parent family is much more likely to fall out of school, to become addicted to drugs, to get into trouble with the law, to be homeless and not to be in employment, education or training. Let me be clear: that is not to be judgmental about parents who find themselves, through no fault of their own, having to bring up a child alone, but two partners make for greater stability.

We know that marriage works, but civil partnerships are also showing evidence of providing greater stability for same-sex couples, including those who have children through adoption, surrogacy or whatever means. There is a strong case for believing that extending civil partnerships would improve that stability for many more families in different ways. If just one in 10 cohabiting opposite-sex couples entered into a civil partnership, that would amount to more than 300,000 couples and their children. The extension of civil partnerships would offer the prospect of greater security and stability, lower likelihood of family breakdown, and better social and financial outcomes. That, surely, would be progress.

Understandably, some people will ask, “Why can those couples not just get married?” People choose not to get involved in the paraphernalia of formal marriage for a variety of reasons. For some, it is too much of an establishment thing to do. Many identify marriage as an innately religious institution, and even if it is done in a registry office, it still has religious connotations. Some see marriage as having a patriarchal side, and some see it as a form of social control. For others, it is rather expensive. Marriage is not seen as a genuine partnership of equals, as civil partnerships are. Those are not my views, but they represent how many people see marriage. Many people have lobbied me—I am sure that they have done the same to other hon. Members—about why they would like to take advantage of the opportunity to enter into a civil partnership, and why they have not got married.