Registers of Births and Deaths Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of the Bill, and I am delighted to offer my support to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). Births and deaths are important moments, and often at present I feel that the registration of such is filled with too much bureaucracy. I am very keen that we might be able to streamline that process.

Of course, the register has many other purposes, does it not? In particular, they include the registration of baby names and allowing us to see the most popular baby names. Probably in testament to one of the many wonderful legacies of my predecessor, Oliver is the most popular boy’s name in the Dorset Council area. Isabella is the most popular girl’s name in the Dorset Council area, which I did not know until I had done the research for this. I should just like to say that, in England and Wales, Christopher ranks at 152 and Andrew ranks at 227, so there we are.

Coming back to the purpose of the Bill, it does remove unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy. I am extremely pleased that we will be able to remove the additional efforts and the additional cost of tens of millions of pounds to the taxpayer. It currently is a complete waste of money. We can do things much better. The cutting down on paper usage also, of course, has many obvious benefits to the environment, albeit reasonably marginal. Digital records can be kept more securely, and it is a more adaptable system that we can evolve and use going forward in terms of technology and societal needs. I am very pleased to be able to support the Bill in the House today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Just to make Andrew Mitchell happy, or happier, nobody is named Nigel any more—one of those things. [Interruption.] I know, I know.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Evans in the Chair]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I should explain that in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements, I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speakers.

Clause 1

Authorisation of criminal conduct

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 20, page 1, line 18, at end insert—

“(3A) In section 27 (Lawful surveillance etc.), in subsection (1)—

(a) after ‘applies’ insert ‘(other than conduct authorised under section 29B)’; and

(b) after ‘Part’ insert ‘(other than conduct authorised under section 29B)’.”

This amendment will ensure that victims of crimes authorised under this Bill can seek civil redress.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 7, page 2, line 7, at end insert—

“(1A) The granting of criminal conduct authorisations under subsection (1) may not take place until a warrant has been issued by a judge.

(1B) An application to a judge under subsection (1A) shall be made in writing and be accompanied by an affidavit of the person granting the criminal conduct authorisation which sets out—

(a) the facts relied on to justify the belief, on reasonable grounds, that a warrant under this section is required;

(b) the persons or classes of persons to whom the warrant is proposed to be directed;

(c) a general description of the place where the warrant is proposed to be executed, if a general description of that place can be given;

(d) the period, not exceeding sixty days or one year, as the case may be, for which the warrant is requested to be in force; and

(e) any previous application made under subsection (1A) in relation to a person who is identified in the application for the warrant, the date on which each such application was made, the name of the judge to whom it was made and the judge’s decision on it.”

Amendment 25, page 2, line 7, at end insert—

“(1A) Authorisations granted under this section require approval in accordance with section 29C.”

Amendment 14, page 2, line 16, after “person” insert “reasonably”.

This amendment would raise the standard for granting a criminal conduct authorisation from believing that it is necessary and proportionate to reasonably believing that it is necessary and proportionate.

Amendment 11, page 2, line 20, at end leave out “; and” and insert “, taking into account—

(i) balancing the size and scope of the proposed activity against the gravity and extent of the perceived crime or harm;

(ii) explaining how and why the methods to be adopted will cause the least possible intrusion on the subject and others;

(iii) whether the conduct to be authorised will have any implications for the privacy of others, and an explanation of why (if relevant) it is nevertheless proportionate to proceed with the operation;

(iv) evidence, as far as reasonably practicable, of what other methods had been considered and why they were not implemented, or have been implemented unsuccessfully; and

(v) whether the activity is an appropriate use of the legislation and a reasonable way, having considered all reasonable alternatives, of obtaining the information sought; or”.

Amendment 1, page 2, line 22, at end insert—

“(d) that the authorisation does not have a disproportionate impact on people with one or more protected characteristics within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.”

This amendment ensures that discrimination on the grounds of protected characteristics will be taken into account before the granting of a criminal conduct authorisation.

Amendment 3, page 2, line 26, leave out “or of preventing disorder”.

Amendment 23, page 2, line 27, leave out from “disorder” to end of line 29.

Amendment 4, page 2, line 28, leave out paragraph (c).

Amendment 15, page 2, line 29, after “Kingdom” insert “so far as those interests are also relevant to the interests of national security”.

This would only allow a criminal conduct authorisation to be granted on economic grounds if it is relevant to national security.

Amendment 5, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

“(5A) A criminal conduct authorisation cannot be granted with regard to the actions of a covert human intelligence source within trade unions.

(5B) In this section, ‘trade unions’ is defined as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.”

Amendment 6, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

“(5A) A criminal conduct authorisation cannot be granted with regard to the actions of a covert human intelligence source engaged in blacklisting.”

Amendment 10, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

“(5A) The circumstances in which a criminal conduct authorisation is necessary on grounds specified in subsection (5)(c) may not include the activities of trade unions.”

Amendment 13, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

“(7B) The following conduct may never be authorised by a criminal conduct authorisation—

(a) causing death or serious bodily harm to a person;

(b) obstructing, perverting or interfering with the course of justice;

(c) violating the sexual integrity of a person;

(d) torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

(e) detention; or

(f) causing the loss of, or any serious damage to, any property if doing so would endanger the safety of a person.

(7C) Subsection (7B) shall not prevent—

(a) a decision not to prosecute in the public interest; or

(b) the entry of a nolle prosequi.”

Amendment 8, page 3, line 2, at end insert—

“(8A) Nothing in this section justifies—

(a) causing, intentionally or by criminal negligence, death or bodily harm to an individual;

(b) wilfully attempting in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice;

(c) violating the sexual integrity of an individual;

(d) subjecting an individual to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, within the meaning of the Convention Against Torture;

(e) detaining an individual; or

(f) causing the loss of, or any serious damage to, any property if doing so would endanger the safety of an individual.”

Amendment 22, page 3, line 2, at end insert—

“(8A) A criminal conduct authorisation may not authorise any criminal conduct—

(a) intentionally causing death or grievous bodily harm to an individual or being reckless as to whether such harm is caused;

(b) involving an attempt in any manner to obstruct or pervert the course of justice;

(c) amounting to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 or any offence listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003;

(d) subjecting an individual to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, within the meaning of Article 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998; or

(e) depriving a person of their liberty, within the meaning of Article 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998.”

Amendment 2, page 3, line 9, at end insert—

“(9A) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner or any affected person may apply for judicial review, in relation to the conduct of a relevant public authority.

(9B) For the purposes of subsection (1), a ‘relevant public authority’ are those set out in section 2(9) of the Act.”

This amendment ensures that the granting of criminal conduct authorisations are subject to judicial review.

Amendment 18, page 3, line 16, at end insert—

“(11) A criminal conduct authorisation will not have effect unless and until the authorisation has been shared with—

(a) the Crown Prosecution Service, in respect of a criminal conduct authorisation relating to conduct taking place in England & Wales;

(b) the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, in respect of a criminal conduct authorisation relating to conduct taking place in Scotland; or

(c) the Public Prosecution Service, in respect of a criminal conduct authorisation relating to conduct taking place Northern Ireland.”

This amendment will ensure that prosecutors can review crimes authorised under this Bill.

Amendment 26, page 3, line 16, at end insert—

“(11) Nothing in this section permits or authorises any criminal conduct by a covert human intelligence source in relation to investigation of any lawful activity by a member of the House of Commons, who has sworn or affirmed the oath prescribed by the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866, or of the House of Lords, in the conduct of that member’s parliamentary or representative duties unless—

(a) the criminal conduct by the covert human intelligence source has been personally authorised by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, and

(b) the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have each made a written declaration that the proposed criminal conduct by the covert human intelligence source in relation to the member of Parliament concerned is both proportionate and necessary in order to preserve national security.

(12) The Secretary of State may by regulations make parallel provision to subsection (10) in respect of members of Senedd Cymru, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament.”

Clause stand part.

Amendment 16, in clause 2, page 4, line 9, leave out from “services” to end of line 23.

This amendment would restrict the authorities that can grant criminal conduct authorisations to police forces, the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office and the intelligence services.

Clause 2 stand part.

Clause 3 stand part.

Amendment 12, in clause 4, page 5, line 4, at end insert—

“(4ZA) Those persons who have granted criminal conduct authorisations must inform the Investigatory Powers Commissioner within seven days of the granting of the authorisation.”

Clause 4 stand part.

Clause 5 stand part.

Clause 6 stand part.

Clause 7 stand part.

New clause 1—Redress for innocent victims—

“(1) Section 65 (5) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (The Tribunal) is amended in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) At the end of subsection (5) insert—

‘(g) any conduct under Section 29B.’”

This new clause ensures that innocent victims are able to seek redress from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

New clause 2—Equality Impact Assessment—

“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual equality impact assessment on the use of criminal conduct authorisations on covert operations involving women, children and Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.

(2) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than three months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.”

New clause 3—Oversight by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament—

“(1) At the end of each relevant twelve-month period the Secretary of State must make a report to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with information on the number of criminal conduct authorisations authorised by the intelligence services and the categories of conduct authorised.

(2) In subsection (1) ‘relevant twelve-month period’ means—

(a) the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, and

(b) each successive period of twelve months.”

On behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, to amend the Bill to ensure that the ISC is kept informed of the use of criminal conduct authorisations by the intelligence services.

New clause 4—Trade Unions—

“(1) A criminal conduct authorisation shall not be granted in respect of the actions of a covert human intelligence source relating to a trade union or a member or officer of a trade union acting or proposing to act in contemplation or furtherance of any issue which is or could be—

(a) the subject matter of collective bargaining within the meaning of section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992;

(b) the subject of a trade dispute within the meaning of section 244 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; or

(c) within the lawful objects of the trade union.

(2) In this section, ‘trade union’ has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.”

This new clause lays out that a criminal conduct authorisation could not be applied to a trade union, thereby putting a limit on where such authorisations can apply.

New clause 5—Blacklisting—

“(1) A criminal conduct authorisation shall not be granted in respect of the actions of a covert human intelligence source in relation to another person who—

(a) is a subject of a prohibited list or is suspected of being a subject of a prohibited list where the action of the covert human intelligence source is related to that fact or suspicion;

(b) compiles, uses, sells, or supplies or proposes or attempts to compile, use, sell, or supplies a prohibited list; or

(c) supplies or proposes or attempts to supply to another information which he knows or can reasonably be expected to know will be used in the compilation or use of a prohibited list.

(2) In this section ‘prohibited list’ has the same meaning as in Regulation 3(2) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 SI 2010/493.”

This new clause lays out that a criminal conduct authorisation could not be applied to a trade union, thereby putting a limit on where such authorisations can apply.

New clause 6—Commissioner approval for authorisations to identify or confirm journalistic sources—

“(1) Subsection (2) applies if a designated person has granted a criminal conduct authorisation for the purposes of identifying or confirming a source of journalistic information.

(2) The authorisation is not to take effect until such time (if any) as a Judicial Commissioner has approved it.

(3) A Judicial Commissioner may approve the authorisation if, and only if, the Judicial Commissioner considers that—

(a) at the time of the grant, there were reasonable grounds for considering that the requirements of this Part were satisfied in relation to the authorisation, and

(b) at the time when the Judicial Commissioner is considering the matter, there are reasonable grounds for considering that the requirements of this Part would be satisfied if an equivalent new authorisation were granted at that time.

(4) In considering whether the position is as mentioned in subsection (3)(a) and (b), the Judicial Commissioner must, in particular, have regard to—

(a) the public interest in protecting a source of journalistic information, and

(b) the need for there to be another overriding public interest before a relevant public authority seeks to identify or confirm a source of journalistic information.

(5) Where, on an application under this section, the Judicial Commissioner refuses to approve the grant of the authorisation, the Judicial Commissioner may quash the authorisation.

(6) In this section—

‘Journalistic material’ means material created or acquired for the purposes of journalism.”

New clause 7—Approval for criminal conduct authorisations—

“After section 29B of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (inserted by section 1) insert—

‘29C Approval for criminal conduct authorisations

(1) This section applies where an authorisation has been granted under section 29B.

(2) The authorisation has no effect until such time (if any) as the Judicial Commissioner has approved the grant of the authorisation.

(3) The Judicial Commissioner may give approval under this section to the granting of an authorisation under section 29B if, and only if, the Judicial Commissioner is satisfied that—

(a) at the time of the grant the person granting the authorisation had reasonable grounds to believe that the requirements of 29B(4), and any requirements imposed by virtue of section 29B(10), were satisfied in relation to the authorisation;

(b) at the time when the Judicial Commissioner is considering the matter, there remain reasonable grounds for believing that the requirements of section 29B(4), and any requirements imposed by virtue of section 29B(10), are satisfied in relation to the authorisation; and

(c) the authorisation granted does not authorise conduct that is incompatible with any Convention rights.

(4) In this section—

“Convention rights” has the meaning given in section 1(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998; and

“Judicial Commissioner” has the meaning given in section 227 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.’”

This new clause is consequential on Amendment 25.

New clause 8—Criminal conduct authorisations: Granting to children and vulnerable sources—

“After section 29B of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (inserted by section 1) insert—

‘29C Criminal conduct authorisations: Granting to children and vulnerable sources

(1) This section applies when the source is—

(a) under the age of 18,

(b) a vulnerable individual, as defined in subsection (5),

(c) a victim of modern slavery or trafficking, as defined in subsection (6).

(2) No criminal conduct authorisations may be granted for a source to whom subsection (1) applies unless the authorising officer believes that exceptional circumstances apply that necessitate the authorisation.

(3) Where a source is one to whom subsection (1) applies the arrangements referred to in section 29(2)(c) of this Act must be such that there is at all times a person holding an office, rank or position with a relevant investigating authority who has responsibility for ensuring that an appropriate adult is present at all meetings between the source and a person representing any relevant investigating authority.

(4) In subsection (3) “appropriate adult” means—

(a) the parent or guardian of the source;

(b) any other person who has for the time being assumed responsibility for his welfare; or

(c) where no person falling within paragraph (a) or (b) is available, any responsible person aged eighteen or over who is neither a member of nor employed by any relevant investigating authority.

(5) A “vulnerable individual” is a person who by reason of mental disorder or vulnerability, other disability, age or illness, is or may be unable to take care of themselves, or unable to protect themselves against significant harm or exploitation.

(6) A “victim of modern slavery or trafficking” is a person who the relevant investigating authority believes is or may be a victim of trafficking as defined by section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, or exploitation as defined by section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

(7) The “exceptional circumstances” in subsection (2) include—

(a) where authorisation of the criminal conduct authorisation is necessary to protect life and limb, including in relation to the CHIS; and

(b) where authorisation of the criminal conduct authorisation is necessary on the grounds of national security.’”

Amendment 21, in schedule 1, page 6, line 22, at end insert—

“(3A) In section 5 (Lawful surveillance etc.), in subsection (1)—

(a) after ‘applies’ insert ‘(other than conduct authorised under section 7A)’; and

(b) after ‘Part’ insert ‘(other than conduct authorised under section 7A)’.”

This amendment will ensure that victims of crimes authorised under this Bill can seek civil redress.

Amendment 19, page 7, line 49, at end insert—

“(10) A criminal conduct authorisation will not have effect unless and until the authorisation has been shared with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.”

This amendment will ensure that prosecutors can review crimes authorised under this Bill.

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 17, in schedule 2, page 10, line 19, leave out from “it” to end of line 30.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

[Mr Carmichael]

I wish to speak also to amendments 14 to 19, which were tabled in my name and the names of other right hon. and hon. Members.

It is worth reminding ourselves at the start why we are debating the Bill and why it is being proceeded with in all the dispatch that is apparent, what with Second Reading having been just on Monday of last week. As we know, the Government had a bit of a narrow squeak—a legal term—in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, and that case is now going off to the Appeal Court. We are now getting what many of us, including those in Reprieve who brought the case to the IPT, have long asked for, and that is a regulatory statutory footing on which the very difficult decisions undertaken by the police, special branch, the security services and others should be done. That is something on which there is broad consensus, which was reflected in the attitude of the House, for the most part, on Second Reading. However, as was apparent from the debate on Second Reading, many of us in different parts of the House have serious concerns about the way in which these matters are being put on to this regulatory statutory footing.

Essentially, it seems to me that the Government have been brought to this point somewhat grudgingly. They have said, “Yes, we will put these things on to a statutory footing, but we will do it in such a broad and general way that, in fact, we will be able to continue to do whatever we have done in the past.” They are seen to embrace change in a way that allows them to continue to behave in the way they have always done. I suggest that that is not, in fact, sensible for any number of reasons. It defeats the purpose of putting these things on to a statutory footing, but I am pretty certain that, sooner or later, it means we will be back here looking at a future Bill because this one is not fit for the purpose the Government claim for it.

The point made repeatedly on Second Reading is that many of the concerns that I and others have, which are reflected in the amendments, are in fact covered by the Human Rights Act 1998. One of the difficulties I have with that is that, throughout their pleadings in front of the IPT, the Government said that the Human Rights Act does not, in fact, apply to the actions of those responsible for covert human intelligence. When we eventually hear from the Minister, could he address a couple of points? First, will this new attitude towards the Human Rights Act, in its applicability to the activities of covert human intelligence sources, be reflected in the pleadings of the Government when it comes to the Appeal Court?

Secondly, can the Minister confirm that the Bill will allow these sources to operate overseas? That being the case, what view do the Government take of the application of the Human Rights Act to the activities of these sources overseas? The position of the Government hitherto has always been that the application extraterritorially—overseas—of the Human Rights Act would not cover these instances, so it is difficult to see if there would be any protection at all in relation to activities overseas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister does help me and I am grateful for his assistance, because if that reasonable belief is in the guidance, there is absolutely no reason why it should not be in the Bill. As I said to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), guidance can be changed without any meaningful oversight from this House. The Minister makes the point for me very well, so perhaps amendment 14, which I had thought modest, is more significant than I realised. I look forward to hearing his acceptance of it—if we could do that without a Division, it would be all the better. [Interruption.] God loves a trier.

Amendment 15 deals with the issue of economic grounds. As things stand, the Bill allows crimes to be authorised if they are necessary

“in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.”

That conjures up all sorts of delicious prospects. If it is decided that we need a different Governor of the Bank of England, can we authorise a CHIS to wipe him out? Could we use this if we decided that a no-deal Brexit was not in the UK’s economic interests? There are at least two or three good Netflix series in this; the possibilities are almost endless. What crimes might be authorised in order to entice a foreign investor to bring their money to the UK or a car manufacturer to keep its UK plant open? There is nothing here to prevent corruption or bribery from being used in these circumstances. Amendment 15 would restrict these grounds to cases that are relevant not only in an economic sense, but to national security. There is precedent for this approach, because amendment 15 matches exactly the amendments the Government themselves made to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill last year, after my noble Friend Lord Paddick raised similar concerns about detaining people in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. If it was good enough for that Bill, there is no reason why it should not be good enough for this one.

Amendments 18 and 19 involve oversight by prosecutors and would require criminal conduct authorisations to be shared with prosecutors before they take effect, to allow for proper independent oversight of these decisions. The amendments cover the same sort of grounds as many others have in their amendments, most notably the Mother of the House, and I believe the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) will cover this in her contributions. They all come to the same point that there has to be independent oversight where matters are as serious as this.

Amendments 16 and 17 deal with the number of different bodies that can be authorised under the Bill as it currently stands. At present, it extends well beyond the obvious candidates and includes: MI5, the police, the security services, the Food Standards Agency, the Gambling Commission, and the Department of Health and Social Care. With these amendments, we seek to reduce the list to the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office and the intelligence services.

Mr Evans, you and I have visited an abattoir in the past and we know that there is plenty of blood in an abattoir already without actually adding to it by empowering meat inspectors to be authorised to spill even more of it. We all know, as we complete our tax returns every year, that taxation can be a tortuous business, but I do not think that we should be giving the taxman the power to apply the thumbscrews.

The need for these extra bodies to be given authorisation under these provisions has never been properly explained from the Treasury Bench. Their inclusion demeans the seriousness of those acts, especially by the security services, the police and the Serious Fraud Office that could well be required to use them in very difficult circumstances. It looks to me, almost certainly, as if these provisions have been put in the Bill with a view to giving up the fight when the Bill gets to the other place, which, I suggest, demonstrates a lack of respect not just for them, but for this House as well.

Finally, I wish to touch on other amendments that have been moved by other right hon. Members. I have added my name to the one from the Mother of the House covering the approval of the judicial commissioner and the one removing economic interest grounds and I support their inclusion in the Bill. Amendment 13 in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), which removes murder, torture and others, would be one of the most obvious amendments that could be made to this Bill to render it genuinely fit for purpose. It is the purpose of this Bill that commands unity; it is the detail of it that requires still so much improvement.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There are 22 Members—because a couple have withdrawn—on the call list. It would be really useful if Members could focus their attention on self-limiting their speeches so that we can get in as many as we possibly can.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and I very much agree with a great deal of what he has said. I hope the Minister will be able to prove to us why it is not necessary to pursue some of these amendments, but I think the right hon. Gentleman put his case very well and very moderately. I appeal to the Minister, who is himself a moderate and considered man, to think about whether it is not appropriate to look at some of the detail of the Bill rather than the thrust of the objective, which we all absolutely support.

I will, if I may, touch on some of the amendments. The broad principle that I have, again rather like the right hon. Gentleman, is that, of course, there will be certain circumstances when it is necessary in the national interest for the brave operatives of our security services to have the power to take actions that might not otherwise be countenanced in the ordinary run of life. I accept that, sometimes, there are people who have put their lives on the line for the country’s sake and that there are circumstances in which they are entitled to protections. I do not have any problem with that, but it is the broad breadth nature of the Bill that is a concern to many of us. Those of us who have served in Government have come across those tempting occasions when submissions come along, and civil servants say, “It will be useful to draw on this widely, Minister, because x, y or z circumstance may occur at some point in the future, so it is better to have this in reserve—in the back pocket.” When one is dealing with things that touch on the exceptional circumstance of the state or its agents being permitted to break the criminal law, or potentially do harm of one kind or another—perhaps out of necessity, but none the less do harm to others—we should be pretty tight in circumscribing those instances as far as we can. We should ensure that, at the very least, there is proper oversight either beforehand when it is appropriate or thereafter by way of proper parliamentary scrutiny—I will come back to that in a moment.

That is why I do not take the line of the official Opposition’s amendment that there should always be pre-authorisation, but I do think, as a basic principle, that there ought to be pre-authorisation at the appropriate level, be that by the judicial commissioner, a prosecutor or another appropriate authority, wherever possible. That ought to be the starting point unless there is some ground, such as a matter of emergency, perhaps literally of life or death, or of the highest importance, where it is not possible to do that. I would like reassurance from the Minister on the test that will be applied as to when these powers will be used, prior to authorisation by a responsible, vetted and highly dependable individual of the kind that we are talking about. That is the first point on which I would like the Minister’s reassurance, and the point about guidance is well made, as far as that is concerned.

My second point, on amendment 20, which has been referred to, is on the position of the exclusion of civil liability. Again, there may be certain circumstances where it is appropriate for agents of the Government to act in a way that may cause some harm to others. A lot of people might not have too much concern if the target of the operation is an organised criminal or a terrorist, or someone who is a threat to us all, but I am concerned that the way in which that particular clause is drawn would also prevent the innocent victim of what might have been an otherwise necessary action—a person who is the collateral damage—from seeking civil redress. I am talking about somebody who was not the target of the steps that were taken but was caught up, literally, in the incident that occurred. Is it really fair or just to say, “Well, that’s just hard luck,” and exclude them from any liability?

The number of cases that this might engage are probably very limited, but the principle is important—someone who has done no harm to the state should not be the victim by happenstance of something that might necessarily and properly have been done in the state’s interests. If we give the state and its agents that power—perhaps reasonably enough—it is not unfair to say that there should be some safeguard for those who, through no fault of their own, might be damaged by it in some way. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that carefully.

There is also the point in the amendments that touches on the authorisation of certain very grave crimes. I appreciate what the Minister said about the intention that our adherence to the Human Rights Act—which I was glad to see the Lord Chancellor restate the other day—is protected, but if that is the case, and given the importance of the subject, why not put that on the face of the Bill? What is lost by that? Should at any time any future Government—I hope not this one—ever derogate in any way from the Human Rights Act, it would be better to have the protection there. My next point is about the scope of the agencies. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, it is pretty difficult think of what types of extreme violence might be authorised in the national interest by the Food Standards Agency? Some greater particularity around that would not be a bad idea either.

I will touch on the point that arises from amendment 13, which is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and others. It is important because, if we are attempting to adopt a similar approach to our important security partners, why not adopt the same approach that is appropriate in the United States or, I would say, perhaps even more persuasively, Canada? It is a Commonwealth and common law jurisdiction country, which has had no difficulty operating a security regime like our own, with operational efficiency but equal concern for protection against abuse. It has found it perfectly possible to work within a statutory parameter of the kind that is suggested. I would like to understand from the Minister a little better why he thinks that that is not appropriate and why that might not be a safeguard to brave operatives under certain circumstances against the bringing of an unjustified complaint or litigation against them.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I inform the House that I have not selected the reasoned amendment.

Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [Lords]

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Report stage & Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Evans in the Chair]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I ask the Clerk to read the title of the Bill, I should explain that, in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s Chair during Committee state, in order to comply with social distancing requirements I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee rather than as Deputy Speakers.

Clause 1

Power of Arrest for Extradition Purposes

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in page 1, line 6, at end insert—

‘( ) Nothing in this Act changes the effect of any rule of law or any enactment in force before the date on which this Act is passed in relation to extradition requests by or on behalf of—

(a) the People’s Republic of China, or

(b) the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.”

This amendment is intended to ensure the provisional arrest arrangements proposed under this Bill do not apply to extradition requests from China and/or Hong Kong.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in page 1, line 6, at end insert—

‘( ) The power to make further amendments under this Act may not be used to make any provision in relation to—

(a) the People’s Republic of China, or

(b) the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.”

This amendment would prevent the power to make amendments under this Bill being used in relation to China and/or Hong Kong.

Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

‘( ) The power to make further amendments under this Act may not be used to make any provision in relation to the United States of America.”

This amendment would prevent the power to make amendments under this Bill being used in relation to the USA.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 1, line 13, at end insert “except in relation to extradition requests by or on behalf of—

(a) the People’s Republic of China, or

(b) the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.”

This amendment would preclude the exercise in respect of China and /or Hong Kong of the powers under the Extradition Act 2003 in relation to British overseas territories, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, in relation to any changes made by this Bill.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 13, at end insert “except in relation to extradition requests by or on behalf of the United States of America.”

This amendment would preclude the exercise in respect of the USA of the powers under the Extradition Act 2003 in relation to British overseas territories, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, in relation to any changes made by this Bill.

Government amendment 11.

Clause 2 stand part.

New clause 1—Annual statement on provisional arrests—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, at the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement setting out how many individuals have been arrested under provisions within this Act.

(2) The statement must include a list of each incident broken down by protected characteristics of each person arrested, as defined in section 4 of the Equality Act 2010.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report in similar terms covering each subsequent 12 month period, within six months of that period ending.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a statement setting out how many individuals have been arrested under provisions within this Act, broken down by characteristics of each person arrested.

New clause 2—Review of the Act—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to review the operation of the provisions of the Extradition Act 2003 as amended by this Act

(2) That person may, from time to time, carry out a review of the provisions of this Act and must send a report on the outcome of such a review to the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after completing the review.

(3) A review under subsection (2) may, in particular, consider operational effectiveness

(4) The person appointed under subsection (1) must carry out and report on the first review before the end of the period of 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.

(5) On receiving a report under this section, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament as soon as the Secretary of State is satisfied that doing so will not prejudice any criminal proceedings.”

This new clause requires the changes made by this Act to be kept under review, and the first review of the Act to be carried out within a year of its being passed.

Government amendment 12.

Amendment 16, page 3, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert—

‘(4) The “designated authority” is the National Crime Agency.”

This amendment would define the “designated authority” as the National Crime Agency.

Amendment 4, page 3, line 36, at end insert—

‘( ) Regulations under subsection (7) may not add the People’s Republic of China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China as a specified category 2 territory.”

This amendment would preclude the exercise in respect of China and Hong Kong of the proposed power under section 75B(7) of the Extradition Act 2003 to add to the list of specified category 2 territories under Schedule A1 on whose authority a valid extradition request may be made.

Amendment 9, page 3, line 36, at end insert—

‘( ) Regulations under subsection (7) may not add the United States of America to the list in Schedule A1 of specified category 2 territories.”

This amendment would preclude the exercise in respect of the USA of the proposed power under section 75B(7) of the Extradition Act 2003 to add to the list of specified category 2 territories under Schedule A1 on whose authority a valid extradition request may be made.

Government amendments 13 and 14.

Amendment 17, page 6, line 42, leave out “Liechtenstein” and insert “All the Member States of the European Economic Area”

This amendment would allow for all EEA Member States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden) to be inserted into new Schedule A1.

Amendment 10,  page 7, leave out line 2

This amendment would remove the USA from the proposed list of specified category 2 countries to which the provisions of this Bill will apply.

Government amendment 15.

Schedule stand part.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I rise to speak to amendment 1, but with it are a whole bunch of other amendments that I have tabled alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). I had intended when I originally tabled them to speak on the basis that the Government needed to act, but since then they have acted—and that is never a bad thing. Although I, with my colleagues, may well have provoked the Government to act, I still want to speak, because things are happening at the moment which mean, I hope, that the Government will pay full attention to further action that may be required, stretching across extradition and into sanctions.

I thank the Government for finally agreeing to rule out the extradition arrangements with Hong Kong, but it is worth noting what has been going on since the imposition of the national security law, which is now making the lives of many in Hong Kong a misery. More than that, they now fear very much indeed not only for their lives but their liberty in a way that none of us here, I sometimes think, could possibly imagine—what it is like to live in such an environment.

We have a historical relationship with Hong Kong, and we have a legal right, under the Sino-British treaty, to have an opinion and view on what is happening in Hong Kong. No matter what the Chinese Government may say, that is our right in international law. The imposition of the national security law runs counter to that arrangement—that treaty. On that basis, the Government have acted correctly in cutting off any potential problem that may arise as a result of the use of the extradition agreement—but there is more, even now, as we speak. Quite recently, we have seen action against a number of people who have done nothing other than use the kind of rights that we would take for granted in this House. Jimmy Lai, the owner of the largest pro-democracy publication in the city, has been charged with undermining the state. There have been arrests of young activists, some of which we have seen on television, but others go on. There have been media posts and people holding blank pieces of paper at protests. People have been arrested in shopping malls for sedition. The targeting of Hong Kong activists overseas is going on apace and gathering pace, as is retrospectively applying the law to supposed crimes that took place before it even came into force, which I find remarkable—perhaps I should not, but I do.

There are then all the elements that the UK Government will find themselves having to deal with, and I believe all the devolved Administrations are united in this sense as well. The evidence around censorship is really quite astonishing. References to the Tiananmen Square massacre have now been removed from all textbooks and all materials that might say anything at all about it—they are simply blanked out. There is a new cultural revolution, with teachers and students being asked and encouraged to spy on each other. If somebody says the wrong thing, or something that is considered the wrong thing, or if someone is remembered to have said the wrong thing, all such talk invokes the use of the security law. There is a new national security centre in Shenzhen to re-educate those who do not comply. Benny Tai, the organiser of the yellow umbrella protest, which is a peaceful movement—I stress that these are all peaceful movements—was fired from his teaching post at a university simply because he was party to that movement. The censorship of university content is now gathering pace, as they are filleting out anything that references any concerns or issues around the nature of China, and even its historical nature.

The latest issue that should concern the Government completely is that we are now seeing problems for journalists from the free world. I say the free world because it is not just a western issue; it is an issue of all those who believe in rights and freedom around the world, whether they be in the far east or in the west. The New York Times has to relocate its staff, completely—lock, stock and barrel—to Seoul after the visa renewal of a senior journalist was rejected; the threat was clearly there that the rest would follow. A senior journalist at the Hong Kong Free Press had their visa rejected. The Foreign Correspondents’ Club in Hong Kong described the trend as a weaponisation of visas by China. We even saw on the news the other day that the Australians are being heavily targeted—brutally targeted—and not only with sanctions; their journalists are now having to flee the country. In fact, two journalists who were due to leave were stopped from leaving and ended up in the consulate. They have now finally left, but the authorities wanted to question them for writing stuff of which they did not approve.

The whole point of this issue then comes into focus. It is the co-operation of the Chinese officials that I find perhaps the most galling. In the announcement by Chief Executive Carrie Lam that they were postponing the LegCo elections that were due to take place on Sunday 5 September—the weekend just gone—she cited covid cases as a reason for the delay. I have heard a few excuses in my time but that one really did take the biscuit, because so many other countries have had elections, both local and national, even during the covid saga. It is also worth pointing out that the Hong Kong rate of infection is lower than pretty much any of the countries that have held elections already. The idea that they can latch on to covid as some kind of excuse for cancelling elections had nothing to do with the reality; the reality was that they did not approve of the opposition and wanted to stop the election so that they had time to make sure they arrested the key elements so that they would never be able to stand. Many members of the opposition have fled here to the UK and I have met and seen them.

There are two points, really, that dismantle the whole process. I made the point earlier that a number of countries—dozens, I think—have held elections. It is part of the total crackdown and acquiescence with what is in essence an illegal process going on in Hong Kong. That brings me to the next phase. The Government are right to have reacted and to have ceased the extradition procedures, but yet more needs to be done. I like to think this is something that unites us all. The sanctions that come from the Magnitsky amendments need seriously to be deployed by the Government. When I was most recently in the Chamber for exchanges on this issue, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government would review other actions that need to be taken with regards to Hong Kong, and that they would take it as the situation develops. The situation has been developing. It has been developing at a pace which, if my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security will forgive my saying, is faster than the Government or the Foreign Office seem to be able to move. We have nothing to lose anymore by holding back. It is not as if the Chinese Government are going to turn around and thank us, because they already think that we have caused problems, so my answer is: let us get on with it.

The deterioration of the situation has accelerated over the summer, and the US Government have already sanctioned Hong Kong and Chinese officials responsible for the implementation of the new law and for human rights abuses. I urge my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Secretary, who is not here, to move on to that and listen to Nathan Law, who fled directly after the Hong Kong Government did not agree to him standing. Others have also had to flee, and they have all called for those sanctions to be applied. I hope that the Government will listen to people whose lives have been under threat and whose families are still in Hong Kong and yet are brave enough to call for such sanctions, knowing full well that that might bring further problems for them.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I do want to give time for the second group of amendments that we are discussing on Report, so I am imposing a five-minute limit in order to get everyone in.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). I recognise her deep experience around these issues.

I primarily want to talk to amendments 1 to 5 in my name and in the names of others. At the outset, let me stress my support for the Bill overall, and for the aims of tackling terrorism and of keeping our people and our communities safe from that threat. All of us from Northern Ireland have been deeply touched by terrorism in a very particular way over the past 50 years, but given the references that have been made to 7/7 and its anniversary that has just passed, I would like to read into the record thoughts about my cousin, Ciaran Cassidy, who was brutally murdered at Russell Square. His remains laid unidentified for six days, which brings home the enormity of the issues with which we are dealing. I accept the need for tougher sentencing and recognise that that brings very significant benefits, but it is important that we acknowledge that there is a much wider picture here, which involves trying to address terrorism at source and to prevent people falling into terrorism and being influenced by others. It is important that we bear that wider context in mind.

My main concerns lie in the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland. I certainly see attractions in the overall uniform approach across the UK in avoiding a two-tier system, and, indeed, Northern Ireland does want equal protection in that respect from the broad principles and framework of this Bill. None the less, we do need to recognise that, when it comes to implementation of those principles, a one-size-fits-all approach does not always work, and that flexibility needs to be considered in certain circumstances.

My main focus is around clause 30 and the retrospective application of the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020 to certain terrorist offenders in Northern Ireland, primarily a small number of dissident republicans. I am happy to see a tougher sentencing regime going forward, but I am concerned that the retrospective application will, in practice, bring relatively little benefit and could be counterproductive in a number of ways.

To date, the Government have only really addressed this issue in terms of the argument around interfering with judicial discretion and the potential implications for article 7 of the European convention on human rights. We can beg to differ on that particular issue, and we will see what happens down the line. In particular, I want to stress the concern around the potential propaganda opportunities that could be given to dissident republican terrorists and their fellow travellers.

Some people may seek to twist what the Government are doing into an argument that this somehow shifts the goalposts and creates a context for political imprisonment. We have had a sad history in Northern Ireland, from internment to the hunger strikes and beyond, of terrorists and their allies using the situation in prisons and framed grievances for wider agitation in the community and recruitment purposes.

The terrorist threat in Northern Ireland remains severe. The Police Service of Northern Ireland and the security service are doing an excellent job in tackling that terrorism, but it is, ever, a difficult challenge that they face. There are, sadly, still ongoing incidents and bomb incidents, and people losing their lives. We need to be mindful of that.

The Minister will be aware that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has raised concerns about clause 30. He will also know that my party colleague, the Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland, has raised those concerns and had a number of conversations with him. Indeed, there is a considerable question mark over whether the necessary legislative consent motion will get through the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly.

It is important that there is ongoing discussion and dialogue beyond the passing of the Bill through the Commons later today, whenever it hits the other place for consideration. Let us not finish that dialogue today. I will press not press my amendments to a vote, but I urge the Government to listen to the very genuine concerns I raise from the Northern Ireland perspective.

--- Later in debate ---

I welcome the fact that the most serious terrorism offences will be subject to 14 years’ in prison and the extended licence of 25 years. That is an essential provision in the legislation. The Bill will deter involvement with terrorist movements at source by increasing the maximum sentences available. That, too, is an essential provision. I also welcome—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am terribly sorry, but we have to move on now.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

Many hon. Members today have reminded the House that our first duty as Members of Parliament is public protection. The very moving contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), and the story of her friend, Louise, who was caught up in the terrible terrorist atrocity of 7 July 2005, very powerfully reminds us of that. On that awful day, 52 members of the public were murdered and 784 were injured.

We have heard powerful testimony from other Members who have had personal, first-hand experience of terrorism, including the hon. Members for North Down (Stephen Farry) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whose family members suffered at the hands of terrorist murders. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) said that in her professional career prior to coming to this place, she had first-hand experience of the victims of terrorism. That testimony should remind us how important our duty is. By taking this Bill through Report stage, we are discharging that duty to our constituents.

It is worth pausing to say how constructive the discussion on this issue has been, on a cross-party basis, on the Floor of the House here today and previously at Second Reading and in Committee. It is an example of this House and our political system working at its best. Members from all sides of the House can be very proud of the way we have conducted the debate on this extremely important Bill.

Let me turn now to some of the comments raised by colleagues this afternoon, starting of course with my opposite number, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who gave a characteristically detailed speech opening the proceedings. He started by commenting on new clause 1 on the probation service, which stands in his name and those of his hon. Friends.

Let me just take the opportunity to reassure him and other Members, once again, that probation service resources were significantly increased in the spending review last September. Moreover, earlier this year, counter-terrorism police resources were increased by £90 million and we are in the process of doubling counter-terrorist specialist probation officers, in addition to those very large numbers who have been given special training.

In addition, we are deepening multi-agency public protection arrangements. We are also establishing a counter-terrorism step-up programme, so I believe our work in the probation sphere is something all of us can take great confidence in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 59, in clause 32, page 29, line 7, at end insert—

“(4) A Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure may not be imposed on an individual, or renewed, solely on the basis of—

(a) any statement made by the person while participating in a polygraph examination;

(b) any physiological reaction of the person while participating in a polygraph examination; or

(c) any refusal to comply with a requirement to participate in a polygraph examination.”

This amendment will prohibit the use of information obtained from a polygraph test as a basis for imposing a TPIM notice on an individual in England and Wales.

Amendment 60, in clause 33, page 30, line 24, at end insert—

“(8) A Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure may not be imposed on an individual, or renewed, solely on the basis of—

(a) any statement made by the person while participating in a polygraph examination;

(b) any physiological reaction of the person while participating in a polygraph examination; or

(c) any refusal to comply with a requirement to participate in a polygraph examination.”

This amendment will prohibit the use of information obtained from a polygraph test as a basis for imposing a TPIM notice on an individual in Scotland.

Amendment 61, in clause 34, page 33, line 6, at end insert—

“(4A) A Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure may not be imposed on an individual, or renewed, solely on the basis of—

(a) any statement made by the person while participating in a polygraph examination;

(b) any physiological reaction of the person while participating in a polygraph examination; or

(c) any refusal to comply with a requirement to participate in a polygraph examination.”

This amendment will prohibit the use of information obtained from a polygraph test as a basis for imposing a TPIM notice on an individual in Northern Ireland.

Amendment 40, page 34, line 22, leave out clause 37.

This amendment removes the provision that lowers the standard of proof to reasonable grounds.

Amendment 37, in clause 37, page 34, line 25, leave out

““has reasonable grounds for suspecting”.”

and insert

“, on the basis of reasonable and probable grounds, believes.”.

This amendment would raise the standard of proof for imposing a TPIM under the proposals in the Bill.

Amendment 39, in clause 37, page 34, line 26, leave out “suspecting” and insert “believing”.

This amendment would create a higher bar for the standard of proof under these proposals.

Amendment 42, page 34, line 27, leave out clause 38.

Amendment 41, in clause 38, page 34, line 31, at end insert—

“(za) in subsection (3)(a), after “met” insert “and the court gives the Secretary of State permission”;

(zb) after subsection (3)(a), insert “(ab) In determining the extension, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review.””

Amendment 46, in clause 38, page 34, line 31, at end insert—

“(za) For subsection (3)(a), substitute “may be extended under subsection (2) only if—

(i) the Secretary of State believes on the balance of probabilities that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity;

(ii) conditions C and D are met; and

(iii) the court gives the Secretary of State permission to extend the TPIM notice.”

This amendment will provide that any extension of a TPIM notice will require (i) a higher threshold to be met (“on the balance of probabilities”), (ii) the Secretary of State must reasonably consider that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism, for terrorism prevention and investigation measures to be imposed on the individual (Condition C), and that it is necessary, for purposes connected with preventing or restricting the individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity, for the specified terrorism prevention and investigation measures to be imposed on the individual (Condition D), and (iii) judicial approval.

Amendment 47, page 35, line 21, leave out clause 39.

This amendment will remove from the Bill clause 39, which allows the Secretary of State to vary the relocation measure in a TPIM notice, if it is necessary to do so for resource reasons.

Amendment 48, page 36, line 27, leave out clause 40.

This amendment will remove from the Bill clause 40, which widens the scope for imposing a curfew beyond overnight.

Amendment 49, page 36, line 32, leave out clause 41.

This amendment will remove from the Bill clause 41, which inserts a new polygraph measure which can be imposed on TPIM subjects to test if they are complying with their TPIM measures, if the Secretary of State considers it necessary to protect the public from a risk of terrorism.

Government amendment 17.

Amendment 50, page 38, line 3, leave out clause 42.

This amendment will remove from the Bill clause 42, which introduces a new drug testing measure which can be imposed on TPIM subjects, to test for Class A and B drugs.

Government amendments 18 and 19.

Amendment 38, in clause 47, page 40, line 17, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) In section 20(9) of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 (support for persons vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism) for the words from “within the period” to the end substitute “by 1 July 2021”.”

This amendment would reinstate a statutory deadline for the independent review of the Prevent strategy, which will have to report by 1 July 2021.

Amendment 51, in clause 47, page 40, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert—

“(a) in subsection (8), replace the words “6 months” with the words “2 years”;

(b) in subsection (9), replace the words “18 months” with the words “3 years”.”

Clause 47 omits the current statutory deadline for (a) making arrangements for an independent review of Prevent and (b) laying before both Houses the report and any recommendations of the review of Prevent. Instead of removing the statutory deadlines, this amendment provides for new deadlines: in respect of (a), 2 years beginning with the day on which the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act was passed (12 February 2019) and in respect of (b), 3 years beginning with the day on which the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act was passed.

[Conor McGinn]

The overriding priority of this Labour Opposition is and always will be to keep the public and our communities safe. I want to concentrate on the three amendments that our Front Benchers have tabled on behalf of the official Opposition, conscious of the fact that we have little time and I wish to hear from colleagues on the Back Benches who did not have the opportunity to discuss these issues in Committee.

As we—including me, as shadow Security Minister—said on Second Reading and in Committee, the tragic events at Fishmongers’ Hall and Streatham showed that there was a clear need for legislation, and subsequent events in Reading have only affirmed that. We on the Opposition Benches are committed to being forceful and robust in the fight against terrorism, so we welcome the Bill and in principle support its introduction. We have also sought to thoughtfully scrutinise the Bill, both to gain assurances on concerns and to attempt to improve it and ensure it is up to that most important task of keeping people safe.

To delve into new clause 8, following the shocking and tragic incident in Reading on Saturday 20 June, my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary called for a judge-led review of the Government’s strategy for tackling the dangerous and growing menace of lone attackers. Reading was the third time in seven months that such devastation had been witnessed on UK streets, with lone attackers responsible each time. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), who showed such leadership and thoughtfulness in the days after the appalling attack on his community.

We on the Opposition Benches have no doubts as to the immense skill, bravery and dedication of our police and security and intelligence services. New clause 8 is fundamentally about supporting them as they tackle extremism from root to branch, because they cannot fight the battle alone. We need to look at the range of services we all rely on, particularly when we want to identify, monitor and treat subjects who pose such a huge threat to wider society.

Our proposals would make provision to assess the systemic response needed for the emerging and disturbing phenomenon of lone terrorists. A judge-led review of the effectiveness of current strategies to deal with them could effectively do that. It would address counter-terrorism policy and sentencing policy as it applies to terrorist offenders and the interactions and effectiveness of public services with respect to incidents of lone terrorist attacks. It would also undertake an analysis of a wide range of key public services, including our probation system, the prison system, mental health services, housing providers and local authorities, each of which can intervene at critical points.

The review would build on prior research and expertise, such as the extensive work carried out by Lord Anderson, the previous Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. That work has already provided insights into how we might better connect the current systems. His review’s proposal for multi-agency centre pilots would involve the identification of newly closed high-risk subjects of interest, the sharing of data by the Security Service and counter-terror policing with other agencies, such as local authorities and Departments, and the enrichment of that data using the databases of multi-agency partners. The review also highlighted barriers to local partners’ involvement in managing subjects of interest, including the challenges of resourcing.

Our public services must have the tools they need to intervene and work together in the most effective and efficient manner possible, particularly as many of the services have interactions with individuals who give them real concern. We need to undertake an assessment of the systemic response needed to confront the dangerous and growing threat of lone attackers, with all the necessary security safeguards in place, and I thank the Minister and the Security Minister for discussions on that.

Jonathan Hall, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, is looking at the issue in a review of the multi-agency public protection arrangements, which was commissioned by the Home Secretary. My understanding is that the review is currently with the Home Office. Can the Minister say a little bit more about that and perhaps commit to publishing it before the Bill reaches the other place, which I think would provide some assurance?

Turning to amendment 38 on TPIMs, we fully agree that the mechanisms must be robust and agile to help the police, the Security Service and their operational partners to do the job of keeping the public safe. As reflected by the amendments that the official Opposition has tabled, as well as those of the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), it is fair to say that we feel the Bill’s proposed changes to TPIMs will have a profound impact on the regime, especially when taken together.

We want TPIMs to be as effective and efficient as possible, and when those on the frontline in policing and counter-terrorism say that the changes will be useful, we fully trust and support their assessment and will do all we can to assist them. We will also, however, seek assurances that proper safeguards are in place. We would all want and expect to see such safeguards on measures of such importance in a democracy such as ours. If the standard of proof is to be lowered while simultaneously making possible a potentially indefinite TPIM by removing the current limit, then scrutiny, oversight and safeguards will take on a new-found importance. 

We must remind ourselves that a TPIM notice can involve a wide range of measures: overnight residence requirements, relocation, police reporting, an electronic monitoring tag, exclusion from certain places, limits on association, limits on the use of financial services, and limits on the use of telephone and computers, as well as a ban on holding travel documents. Those are robust measures and, in my view, rightly so, but we must not forget that TPIMs are a restriction on rights for people who have not yet been convicted of any crime. It is not in the interests of anyone to allow such individuals to remain indefinitely on TPIMs, either for their own sake, for society’s, or, crucially, in terms of bringing them to justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

I will speak briefly. As I did on Second Reading, I would like to associate a lot of my comments with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who again outlined with clarity some of the main issues in the Bill that I think will be challenged in another place. I hope they are to a degree and that the tyres are kicked a little harder.

We need a little more clarity from the Government on why we are moving to this much lower standard of proof. However, I am particularly pleased that the Minister has given clarification on the issue of the polygraph test. On time restrictions, I totally understand what my hon. Friend was saying about sleeper agents. Over the last few months, we have seen people going to ground for perhaps several months, or even years, and then re-emerging, but I think that there has to at least be some oversight of that and of the use of TPIMs.

Finally, I support Government amendment 18 and amendment 50. I do not see why it would be unreasonable for drug testing to be part of the TPIM regime. I generally welcome the legislation, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to some of these points at the Dispatch Box.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We are going to have to introduce a time limit of five minutes to get in as many as we can. The Minister will come in just before 5.50 pm

[Ms Abbott]

I rise to speak in support of the amendments. The stakes in any debate about terrorism and how to combat terrorism successfully are extremely high, because these are issues that involve the lives and liberties of all of us. Children as well as adults have lost their lives in some of these terrible incidents, particularly in the horrific Manchester Arena bombing. Police officers have been murdered. We were all shocked by the murder of a fellow MP, Jo Cox, and I was a Member of this House in the ’80s and ’90s at the height of the IRA’s mainland bombing campaign, so, please, there is no one on the Opposition side who does not take the threat of terrorism seriously. However, it is extremely appropriate that Parliament should not be nodding through counter-terror legislation but should be subjecting it to proper scrutiny, because that is in the interests of us all. At the heart of that scrutiny has to be: will this legislation help minimise terror attacks?

Governments of all parties, including my own, have tended to want to argue that measures that undermine civil liberties are the answer to terrorism, but sometimes such measures run the risk of being a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. It is in that light that I address my remarks to the Prevent programme. The Government previously committed to a review of Prevent. I can only ask: where is the review? My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), speaking from the Front Bench, described Prevent as controversial. It is not just controversial; it is a toxic brand, and I would argue it is increasingly counterproductive in the fight against terrorism that we all want to support. We should look at a replacement for the Prevent programme. It is not that good work has not been done in the name of Prevent—I visited some of those programmes in another role—but increasingly it is not doing the job it was established to do and, because its reputation is so toxic, it is not as effective as it could be in combating terrorism.

If we examine the terror incidents that have been inflicted on our communities in detail, we find that very few of the perpetrators have ever been in contact with a Prevent programme. At the same time, Prevent casts a hugely wide net over people, particularly in the Muslim community. In 2017-18, 7,300 people were referred to the Prevent programme, and the overwhelming majority of those were incorrect referrals. In fewer than one in five cases was there any discussion of these individuals at a Channel panel, and fewer than 400 people have received support from the Channel programme. No wonder, to many communities that find themselves targeted, it looks and feels like a trawling operation. I remember that in counter-terrorism debates with reference to the IRA’s mainland bombing campaign, it was former Army officers in this House—not people on my side of the Chamber—who argued against measures that could be a recruiting sergeant for terrorists.

As we know, when Ministers are challenged on Prevent, they respond as if any criticism of it is leading to an attempt to abolish our counter-terrorism efforts altogether. I want to nail that one. As Ministers know, Prevent is only one strand of the Contest strategy and we support the other three strands of pursue, protect and prepare. Serious consideration should be given to how all of those can be enhanced and made more effective. But, from all the evidence and all the people and communities I have spoken to, I conclude that Prevent is in danger of being counterproductive, alienating communities and ultimately making the fight against terrorism harder.

A more effective anti-radicalisation programme could and should be constituted. It would involve communities themselves. It would not be imposed on communities, but it would be working with communities, relying on people’s intelligence information, their sensitivities and their very real concerns, and the very real concerns of the overwhelming majority of people in this country who are opposed to terrorism in all its guises. Working with communities and relying on them, not demonising them and ostracising them, is the way forward.

In conclusion, all of us on both sides of the House have a great responsibility in fighting terrorism. The most important duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, and we on the Opposition Benches feel that very strongly, but the safety and security of our people in the fight against terrorism cannot be upheld by knee-jerk reactions, simplistic formulations or programmes that prove to be counterproductive. An impartial review of the Prevent programme is long overdue. The fear is that now there is too much political capital invested in the Prevent programme for it to change course, but the fight against terrorism is too serious to be taken lightly. If something is not working, we need to fix it. That is why the time is right to review Prevent and to start again with an entirely new programme with the same aims, but a programme that works with communities rather than demonising them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We did add some time—[Interruption.] No, it is fine. We added a bit of time because we have just redone the maths and the time limit is now six minutes.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I wish to start by endorsing some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) about the use of polygraphs. The Minister will know that I have been in touch with him a number of times on this particular issue, and I accept his assurances that they will be used simply for behavioural science purposes and not for legal purposes.

I wish to speak to amendments 40 and 42. As others have said, there have been a number of tragic terrorist attacks this year and there is an urgent need to protect people from further terrorist violence, but we need measures that will keep the public safe, not give the Government free rein to restrict the rights of innocent people on a never-ending basis based on little more than a hunch. We must ensure that our security services have the tools and resources that they need to do their jobs, but we must also ensure that any new powers and legislation will be necessary, effective and proportionate to the threats that we face. That is not the case when it comes to clauses 37 and 38, as they would massively expand the Home Secretary’s powers to impose terrorism prevention and investigation measures, which can include curfews and electronic tagging. These changes would essentially mean a return to control orders, as Members from all parts of the House have pointed out, and they were heavily criticised for getting the balance wrong between national security and civil liberties and were then replaced by TPIMs by the coalition Government in 2011.

There is minimal evidence that putting power in the hands of a single Minister to impose curfews and tagging will do anything to keep people safe, but it will put the rights and freedoms of innocent people at risk. These changes are opposed by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Amnesty and Liberty, and the Liberal Democrats are also opposing these two clauses today. We had tabled amendments to remove them from the Bill and to keep the existing safeguards in place, and we were pleased to transfer our names to other amendments that seek to do the same.

The Liberal Democrats will continue to demand an effective, evidence-based approach to combating terrorism. Let me end by pointing out that this is the eighth counter-terrorism Bill in 10 years. If more legislation was the answer, we might have stopped these kinds of attacks by now.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 6th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 16—Special measures in family proceedings: victims of domestic abuse.

Government new clause 17—Special measures in civil proceedings: victims of specified offences.

Government new clause 18—Prohibition of cross-examination in person in civil proceedings.

Government new clause 20—Consent to serious harm for sexual gratification not a defence.

New clause 1—Pornography and domestic violence: research—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must commission research into the impact of pornography consumption on levels of domestic violence.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay the research before Parliament within 12 months of this Act being passed.”

New clause 2—Research into the incidence of domestic abuse within different living arrangements—

The Secretary of State must commission research on the incidence of domestic abuse in the context of different forms of relationship including marriage, civil partnerships and cohabitation, with special respect to both adult and child wellbeing and reporting to the House with this research and policy recommendations within 12 months of this Act becoming law.”

New clause 3—Report on domestic abuse incidence and sentencing—

The Secretary of State must provide a report to the House reviewing trends in the incidences of domestic abuse and sentencing for domestic abuse offences over the last ten years in England and Wales with a view to making policy recommendations including with respect to increasing both minimum and maximum sentences for domestic abuse offences and present to Parliament within the 12 months of this Act becoming law.

New clause 4—No defence for consent to death—

‘(1) If a person (“A”) wounds, assaults or asphyxiates another person (“B”) to whom they are personally connected as defined in section 2 of this Act causing death, it is not a defence to a prosecution that B consented to the infliction of injury.

(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the death occurred in the course of a sadomasochistic encounter.”

This new clause would prevent consent of the victim from being used as a defence to a prosecution in domestic homicides.

New clause 5—No defence for consent to injury—

‘(1) If a person (“A”) wounds, assaults or asphyxiates another person (“B”) to whom they are personally connected as defined in section 2 of this Act causing actual bodily harm or more serious injury, it is not a defence to a prosecution that B consented to the infliction of injury or asphyxiation.

(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the actual bodily harm, non-fatal strangulation, or more serious injury occurred in the course of a sadomasochistic encounter.”

This new clause would prevent consent of the victim from being used as a defence to a prosecution in cases of domestic abuse which result in serious injury.

New clause 6—Consent of Director of Public Prosecutions—

In any homicide case in which all or any of the injuries involved in the death, whether or not they are the proximate cause of it, were inflicted in the course of domestic abuse, the Crown Prosecution Service may not without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, in respect of the death—

(a) charge a person with manslaughter or any other offence less than the charge of murder, or

(b) accept a plea of guilty to manslaughter or any other lesser offence.”

This new clause would require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions if, in any homicide case in which any of the injuries were inflicted in the course of domestic abuse, the charge (or the plea to be accepted) is of anything less than murder.

New clause 7—Director of Public Prosecutions consultation with victim’s family in domestic homicides—

‘(1) Before deciding whether or not to give consent to charging a person with manslaughter or any other offence less than the charge of murder in an offence of homicide in which domestic abuse was involved, the Director of Public Prosecutions must consult the immediate family of the deceased.

(2) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements, including the provision of a grant, to enable the immediate family to access legal advice prior to being consulted by the Director of Public Prosecutions under subsection (1).”

This new clause would require the Director of Public Prosecutions to consult the immediate family of the victim before charging less than murder in a domestic homicide and provide the family with legal advice so they can understand the legal background.

New clause 8—Offence of non-fatal strangulation—

A person (A) commits an offence if that person unlawfully strangles, suffocates or asphyxiates another person (B), where the strangulation, suffocation or asphyxiation does not result in B’s death.”

This new clause will create a new offence of non-fatal strangulation.

New clause 9—Offence of non-fatal strangulation in domestic abuse context—

A person (A) commits an offence if that person unlawfully strangles, suffocates or asphyxiates another person (B) to whom they are personally connected as defined in section 2 of this Act, where the strangulation, suffocation or asphyxiation does not result in B’s death.”

This new clause will create a new offence of non-fatal strangulation in domestic abuse offences.

New clause 10—Prohibition of reference to sexual history of the deceased in domestic homicide trials—

If at a trial a person is charged with an offence of homicide in which domestic abuse was involved, then—

(a) no evidence may be adduced, and

(b) no question may be asked in cross-examination, by or on behalf of any accused at the trial,

about any sexual behaviour of the deceased.”

This new clause will prevent the victim’s previous sexual history being used as evidence to prove consent to violence in a domestic homicide case. This draws on the legislative measures in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to prevent rape defendants raking up or inventing complainants’ previous sexual history.

New clause 11—Anonymity for victims in domestic homicides—

‘(1) Where a person (“A”) has been accused of a domestic homicide offence and where the person (“B”) against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed has died in the course of sexual activity, no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify a person as B shall be included in any publication.

(2) The matters relating to a person in relation to which the restrictions imposed by subsection (1) applies (if their inclusion in any publication is likely to have the result mentioned in that subsection) include in particular—

(a) the person’s name,

(b) the person’s address,

(c) the identity of any school or other educational establishment attended by the person,

(d) the identity of any place of work,

(e) any still or moving picture of the person.

(3) If, at the commencement of the trial, any of the matters in subsection (2) have already appeared in any publication, the judge at the trial may direct that no further reference to any of these matters may be included in any publication.

(4) If any matter is included in a publication in contravention of this section, the following persons shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale—

(a) where the publication is a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, any editor and any publisher of the newspaper or periodical;

(b) where the publication is a relevant programme—

(i) any body corporate engaged in providing the programme service in which the programme is included; and

(ii) any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper;

(c) in the case of any other publication, any person publishing it.

(5) For the purposes of this section—

“domestic homicide offence” means an offence of murder or manslaughter which has involved domestic abuse;

a “publication” includes any speech, writing, relevant programme, social media posting or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public (and for this purpose every relevant programme shall be taken to be so addressed), but does not include an indictment or other document prepared for use in particular legal proceedings.”

This new clause will provide the victim of a domestic homicide with public anonymity.

New clause 12—Domestic abuse: report on incidence and sentencing—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of Royal Assent being given to this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on—

(a) the incidence of domestic abuse in England and Wales since 1 January 2010, and

(b) sentencing for any offence where judgment was handed down after 1 January 2010 and it was alleged that the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse.

(2) A purpose of a report under subsection (1) shall be to inform a decision on whether or not to increase the minimum or maximum sentence for any offence where it is found the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse.

(3) “Domestic abuse” shall, for the purposes of this section, have the meaning given in section 1 of this Act.”

New clause 13—Screening for acquired brain injury in domestic abuse cases—

‘(1) A woman who has been the subject of domestic abuse shall, with her consent, be screened for traumatic brain injury, and other forms of acquired brain injury, including concussion.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a woman has been the subject of domestic abuse if—

(a) she is the person for whose protection a domestic abuse protection notice or a domestic abuse protection order has been issued, or

(b) she is the person against whom it is alleged that domestic abuse has been perpetrated when the accused is charged with an offence that amounts to domestic abuse within the meaning of section 1 of this Act.

(3) In the case of subsection (2)(a), the screening shall take place within two weeks of a domestic abuse protection notice or a domestic abuse protection order being issued.

(4) In the case of subsection (2)(b), the screening shall take place within two weeks of a charge being made for an offence where it is alleged that the behaviour of the accused amounts to domestic abuse within the meaning of section 1 of this Act.”

New clause 14—Acquired brain injury screening for female prisoners—

‘(1) All female prisoners must be screened for traumatic brain injury, and other forms of acquired brain injury, including concussion, within two weeks of starting their sentence.

(2) A purpose of the screening will be to assist in a determination as to whether a prisoner has been the subject of domestic abuse.

(3) If the screening shows that there is an acquired brain injury—

(a) an assessment must be made of whether such an injury has been acquired as a result of domestic abuse, and

(b) the prisoner must be given appropriate rehabilitation treatment and advice.”

New clause 19—Anonymity of domestic abuse survivors in criminal proceedings—

‘(1) Where an allegation has been made that a relevant offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person’s lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the survivor.

(2) Where a person is accused of a relevant offence, no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed as the survivor shall during the survivor’s lifetime be included in any publication.

(3) This section does not apply in relation to a person by virtue of subsection (1) at any time after a person has been accused of the offence.

(4) The matters relating to a survivor in relation to which the restrictions imposed by subsection (1) or (2) apply (if their inclusion in any publication is likely to have the result mentioned in that subsection) include—

(a) the survivor’s name;

(b) the survivor’s address;

(c) the identity of any school or other educational establishment the survivor attended;

(d) the identity of any place where the survivor worked;

(e) any still or moving pictures of the survivor; and

(f) any other matter that might lead to the identification of the survivor.

(5) At the commencement of a trial at which a person is charged with a relevant offence, the judge may issue a direction for lifting the restrictions only following an application by or on behalf of the survivor.

(6) Any matter that is included in a publication in contravention of this section must be deleted from that publication and no further reference to the matter may be made in any publication.

(7) If any matter is included in a publication in contravention of this section, the following persons shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale—

(a) where the publication is a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, any editor and any publisher of the newspaper or periodical;

(b) where the publication is a relevant programme—

(i) any body corporate or Scottish partnership engaged in providing the programme service in which the programme is included; and

(ii) any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper;

(c) in the case of any other publication, any person publishing it.

(8) For the purposes of the section—

“publication” means any material published online or in physical form as any well as any speech, writing, website, online news outlet, social media posting, relevant programme or other communication in whatever form which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public;

a “relevant offence” means any offence where it is alleged by the survivor that the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse;

“survivor” means the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed.”

This new clause provides lifetime press anonymity for survivors of domestic abuse, and reflects similar protections for survivors of sexual assault enshrined in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. It prevents identifiable details from be published online or in print, and creates a new offence for breaching this anonymity.

New clause 21—Register for domestic abuse—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for the creation of a register containing the name, home address and national insurance number of any person (P) convicted of an offence that constitutes domestic abuse as defined in section 1 of this Act.

(2) Each police force in England and Wales shall be responsible for ensuring that the register is kept up to date with all relevant offences committed in the police force’s area.

(3) Each police force in England and Wales shall be responsible for ensuring that P notifies relevant police forces within 14 days if they commence a new sexual or romantic relationship.

(4) A failure to notify the police in the circumstances set out in subsection (4) shall be an offence liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months.

(5) The relevant police force shall have the right to inform any person involved in a relationship with P of P’s convictions for domestic abuse as defined in section 1 of this Act.”

This new clause would require that any person convicted of any offence of domestic abuse as defined in section 1 must have their details recorded on a domestic abuse register to ensure that all the perpetrator’s subsequent partners have full access to information regarding their domestic abuse offences.

New clause 22—Recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors—

‘(1) The Immigration Acts are amended as follows.

(2) In section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 after subsection (10) insert—

“(11) This section does not apply to a person who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom who provides evidence in one or more of the forms set out in section [Recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors] of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020.”

(3) In paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 after sub-paragraph (b) insert—

“(ba) to a person who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom who provides evidence in one or more of the forms set out in section [Recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors] of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020, or”.

(4) In section 21 of the Immigration Act 2014 at the end of subsection (3) insert “or if P is a victim of domestic abuse”.

(5) In section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State may not make or maintain a condition under subsection (1)(c)(ii) on leave granted to a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom who provides evidence in one or more of the forms set out in section [Recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors] of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020; and it is not a breach of the immigration laws or rules for such a victim to have recourse to public funds.”

(6) For the purposes of this section, evidence that a person is a victim of domestic abuse may consist of one or more of the following—

(a) a relevant conviction, police caution or protection notice;

(b) a relevant court order (including without notice, ex parte, interim or final orders), including a non-molestation undertaking or order, occupation order, domestic abuse protection order, forced marriage protection order or other protective injunction;

(c) evidence of relevant criminal proceedings for an offence concerning domestic violence or a police report confirming attendance at an incident resulting from domestic abuse;

(d) evidence that a victim has been referred to a multi-agency risk assessment conference;

(e) a finding of fact in the family courts of domestic abuse;

(f) a medical report from a doctor at a UK hospital confirming injuries or a condition consistent with being a victim of domestic abuse;

(g) a letter from a General Medical Council registered general practitioner confirming that he or she is satisfied on the basis of an examination that a person had injuries or a condition consistent with those of a victim of domestic abuse;

(h) an undertaking given to a court by the alleged perpetrator of domestic abuse that he or she will not approach the applicant who is the victim of the abuse;

(i) a letter from a social services department confirming its involvement in providing services to a person in respect of allegations of domestic abuse;

(j) a letter of support or a report from a domestic abuse support organisation; or

(k) other evidence of domestic abuse, including from a counsellor, midwife, school, witness or the victim.

(7) For the purposes of this section—

“domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020;

“victim” includes the dependent child of a person who is a victim of domestic abuse.

(8) Within 12 months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must commission a review into the operation of the provisions in this section.

(9) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the findings of the review.”

This new clause seeks to ensure that certain provisions under the Immigration Acts – including exclusion from public funds, certain types of support and assistance and the right to rent – do not apply to survivors of domestic abuse. There will be a review into the operation of this provision.

New clause 23—Commissioning specialist domestic abuse services for victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse—

‘(1) It is the duty of relevant public authorities in England and non-devolved relevant public authorities in Wales in the exercise of their functions to commission sufficient specialist services for all persons affected by domestic abuse regardless of status.

(2) To ensure compliance with the duty under subsection (1) public authorities must—

(a) regularly assess population and support needs changes in their area;

(b) take account of any strategy to end violence against women and girls adopted by a Minister of the Crown; and

(c) co-operate to discharge the duty.

(3) The Secretary of State may issue regulations making provision for the resolution of disputes between public authorities relating to the discharge of the duty under subsection (1).

(4) In relation to the provision of domestic abuse support as defined by section 54(2), each relevant local authority may discharge the duty under subsection (2)(a) through compliance with its obligations under section 54(1)(a).

(5) In performing the duty under subsection (1) a relevant public authority must secure sufficient specialist services for (among others) the following persons—

(a) any victim of domestic abuse aged over 18;

(b) any child aged under 18 who experiences or witnesses domestic abuse;

(c) any person aged over 18 who exhibits abusive behaviour towards another person to whom they are personally connected;

(d) any child aged under 18 who exhibits abusive behaviour towards another person to whom they are personally connected.

(6) In performing the duty under subsection (1), a relevant public authority must where necessary secure specialist services designed to meet the particular needs of a group that shares a status to ensure appropriate and effective service provision.

(7) In this section—

“abusive behaviour” is behaviour that is abusive within the definition in section 1(3).

“domestic abuse” has the meaning given by Part 1 of this Act.

“personally connected” has the meaning given in section 2 of this Act.

“relevant public authorities” are public authorities with statutory functions relevant to the provision of specialist services, including but not limited to—

(a) Ministers of the Crown and Government departments;

(b) local government in England;

(c) NHS Trusts in England;

(d) Police and Crime Commissioners;

(e) prison, police and probation services.

“status” means a status for the purpose of Article 4(3) of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, and combined forms of any such status.

“specialist services” include but are not limited to the following when provided in connection with domestic abuse, whether provided by a public authority or any other person or body—

(a) protective measures and action taken to protect persons against domestic abuse;

(b) residential accommodation, including refuge services and other relevant accommodation and support as defined in section 54(2);

(c) counselling and other support;

(d) advocacy services;

(e) access to welfare benefits;

(f) perpetrator programmes;

(g) financial support;

(h) legal services;

(i) helplines;

(j) services designed to meet the particular needs of a group that shares a status to ensure appropriate and effective service provision, including separate or single-sex services within the meaning given in Part 7 of Schedule 3 the Equality Act, and “communal accommodation” within the meaning given in paragraph 3 of Schedule 23 to the Equality Act 2010.

“victims of domestic abuse” includes—

(a) persons towards whom domestic abuse is directed and

(b) persons who are reasonably believed to be at risk of domestic abuse.”

This new clause would establish a statutory duty on relevant public authorities to commission specialist support and services to all persons affected by domestic abuse. This includes refuge and community-based services; specialist services for groups with protected characteristics; services for children and young people; services for perpetrators.

New clause 24—Proceedings under the Children Act 1989—

‘(1) Part I of the Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 1 (the welfare of the child) after subsection (2B) insert—

“(2C) Subsection (2A) shall not apply in relation to a parent where there has been domestic abuse which has affected the child or other parent.

(2D) Evidence of domestic abuse may be provided in one or more of the forms set out in regulation 33(2) of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012.”

(3) Part II of the Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.

(4) In section 9 (restrictions on making section 8 orders) after subsection (7) insert—

“(8) No court shall make a section 8 order for a child to spend unsupervised time with or have unsupervised contact with a parent who is—

(a) awaiting trial, or on bail for, a domestic abuse offence, or

(b) involved in ongoing criminal proceedings for a domestic abuse offence.

(8A) In subsection (8)—

“unsupervised” means where a court approved third party is not present at all times during contact with the parent to ensure the physical safety and emotional wellbeing of a child;

“domestic abuse offence” means an offence which the Crown Prosecution Service alleges to have involved domestic abuse.””

This new clause seeks to change the presumption that parental involvement furthers the child’s welfare when there has been domestic abuse. It also prohibits unsupervised contact for a parent awaiting trial or on bail for domestic abuse offences, or where there are ongoing criminal proceedings for domestic abuse.

New clause 25—Effective protection and support for all victims of domestic abuse—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must take steps to ensure that all victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of their status, receive—

(a) equally effective protection against domestic abuse, and

(b) equally effective support.

(2) In this section—

“status” includes a status for the purpose of Article 4(3) of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence and any combined forms of such status.

“victims of domestic abuse” includes persons who are reasonably believed to be at risk of domestic abuse.”

This new clause ensures all victims of domestic abuse are protected, regardless of their status, in line with Article 4(3) of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention).

New clause 26—Victims of domestic abuse: leave to remain—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of this Act being passed, lay a statement of changes in rules made under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (“the immigration rules”) to make provision for leave to remain to be granted to any person subject to immigration control who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom.

(2) The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules for the granting of indefinite leave to remain to any person subject to immigration control who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom; and the statement must provide for those rules to be commenced no later than one month of the laying of the statement.

(3) The Secretary of State must make provision for granting limited leave to remain for a period of no less than 6 months to any person eligible to make an application under the immigration rules for the purposes of subsection (2); and such leave shall include no condition under section 3(1)(c)(i), (ia), (ii) or (v) of the Immigration Act 1971.

(4) The Secretary of State must make provision for extending limited leave to remain granted in accordance with subsection (3) to ensure that leave continues throughout the period during which an application made under the immigration rules for the purposes of subsection (2) remains pending.

(5) Where subsection (6) applies, notwithstanding any statutory or other provision, no services shall be withheld from a victim of domestic abuse solely by reason of that person not having leave to remain or having leave to remain subject to a condition under section 3(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971.

(6) This subsection applies where a provider of services is satisfied that the victim of domestic abuse is eligible to make an application to which subsection (3) refers.

(7) The Secretary of State must, for the purposes of subsection (5), issue guidance to providers of services about the assessment of eligibility to make an application to which subsection (3) refers.

(8) In this section—

an application is “pending” during the period—

(a) beginning when it is made,

(b) ending when it is finally decided, withdrawn or abandoned, and an application is not finally decided while an application for review or appeal could be made within the period permitted for either or while any such review or appeal remains pending (meaning that review or appeal has not been finally decided, withdrawn or abandoned);

“person subject to immigration control” means a person in the United Kingdom who does not have the right of abode;

“provider of services” includes both public and private bodies;

“services” includes accommodation, education, employment, financial assistance, healthcare and any service provided exclusively or particularly to survivors of domestic abuse.”

This new clause would make provision in the immigration rules for the granting of indefinite leave to remain to migrant survivors of domestic abuse and limited leave to remain to a survivor who is eligible to make an application for indefinite leave to remain.

New clause 27—Victims of domestic abuse: data-sharing for immigration purposes—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that personal data of a victim of a domestic abuse in the United Kingdom that is processed for the purpose of that person requesting or receiving support or assistance related to domestic abuse is not used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.

(2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that the personal data of a witness to domestic abuse in the United Kingdom that is processed for the purpose of that person giving information or evidence to assist the investigation or prosecution of that abuse, or to assist the victim of that abuse in any legal proceedings, is not used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.

(3) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 shall not apply to the personal data to which subsection (1) or (2) applies.

(4) For the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State must issue guidance to—

(a) persons from whom support or assistance may be requested or received by a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom;

(b) persons exercising any function of the Secretary of State in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality; and

(c) persons exercising any function conferred by or by virtue of the Immigration Acts on an immigration officer.

(5) For the purposes of this section—

“consent” means a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the victim or witness, by an express statement of that person signifying agreement to the processing of the personal data for the relevant purpose;

“immigration control purpose” means any purpose of the functions to which subsection (4)(ii) and (iii) refers;

“support or assistance” includes the provision of accommodation, banking services, education, employment, financial or social assistance, healthcare and policing services; and any function of a court or prosecuting authority;

“victim” includes any dependent of a person, at whom the domestic abuse is directed, where that dependent is affected by that abuse.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make arrangements to ensure that the personal data of migrant survivors of domestic abuse that is given or used for the purpose of their seeking or receiving support and assistance is not used for immigration control purposes.

New clause 28—Enabling access to abortion in abusive relationships—

‘(1) The Abortion Act 1967 is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of section 1 add—

“(5) Subsection (3) of this section shall not apply to the termination of a pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner who is of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the woman is unable to access treatment for the termination of pregnancy in a hospital or a place approved by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) by reason of the abusive behaviour of a person with whom the woman is personally connected within the meaning of section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020.””

In cases of domestic abuse where a woman seeking an abortion is subject to coercive control, this new clause would remove the legal requirement for attendance at a hospital or licensed premises in order to access lawful abortion services.

Amendment (a), line 4 after “apply to the” insert “medical”

Amendment (b), line 6 after “faith,” insert

“that the pregnancy has not exceeded nine weeks and six days and”

Amendment (c), line 10 at end insert—

‘(3) This section may not take effect until the Government has conducted an inquiry into the safety, number, and impact of abortions carried out under the temporary coronavirus crisis provisions where the place of abortion was the woman’s home, and has laid a Report on this before Parliament.”

New clause 30—Local Welfare Provision schemes—

‘(1) Every local authority in England must deliver a Local Welfare Provision scheme which provides financial assistance to victims of domestic abuse.

(2) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on the nature and scope of Local Welfare Provision schemes and review this biannually in consultation with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and other such individuals and agencies the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must provide local authorities with additional funding designated for Local Welfare Provision, to increase per year with inflation.

(4) For the purposes of this subsection “domestic abuse” is defined in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020.”

This new clause would allow victims of domestic abuse to access a local welfare assistance scheme in any locality across England.

New clause 31—Guidance: Child maintenance—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance relating to the payment of child maintenance where the person with care of the child is a victim of domestic abuse.

(2) Guidance issued under this section must take account of—

(a) the potential for the withholding or reducing of child maintenance to constitute economic abuse under section 1(4) of this Act;

(b) the need for enforcement action to prevent non-payment; and

(c) the difficulties faced by victims of domestic abuse in obtaining evidence to support an application for a variation of a child maintenance calculation.

(3) The Child Maintenance Service must have regard to any guidance issued under this section when exercising a function to which the guidance relates.

(4) Before issuing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and

(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(5) The Secretary of State must publish any guidance issued under this section.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the Child Maintenance Service to tackle the problem of abusers continuing economic abuse by withholding or reducing child maintenance payments.

New clause 32—Assessment and management of serial and serious domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators—

Within six months of the commencement of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament reviewing arrangements for assessing and managing the risk presented by serial and serious harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators.”

New clause 33—Monitoring of serial and serious harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators under MAPPA—

‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 325 (Arrangements for assessing etc risk posed by certain offenders) —

(a) in subsection (1), after ““relevant sexual or violent offender” has the meaning given by section 327” insert—

““relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” has the meaning given in section 327ZA;”;

(b) in subsection (2)(a), after “offenders” insert “(aa) relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrators,”.

(3) After section 327 (Section 325: interpretation) insert—

“327ZA Section 325: interpretation of relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator

(1) For the purposes of section 325—

a person (“P”) is a “relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” if P has been convicted of a specified offence and meets either the condition in subsection (2)(a) or the condition in subsection (2)(b).

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the conditions are—

(a) P is a relevant serial offender;

(b) a risk of serious harm assessment has identified P as presenting a high or very high risk of serious harm.

(3) An offence is a “specified offence” for the purposes of this section if it is a specified domestic abuse offence or a specified stalking offence.

(4) In this section—

“relevant serial offender” means a person convicted on more than one occasion for the same specified offence; or a person convicted of more than one specified offence;

“specified domestic abuse offence” means an offence where it is alleged that the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse within the meaning defined in Section 1 of this Act;

“specified stalking offence” means an offence contrary to section 2A or section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

(5) Within six months of the commencement of this section, a Minister of the Crown must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament reviewing the interpretation of the term “relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” for the purposes of section 325.

(6) A report under subsection (5) must give specific consideration to arrangements for assessing and managing the risks of domestic abuse or stalking posed by perpetrators convicted of offences other than a specified offence.

(7) Subject to a report under subsection (5) being laid before both Houses of Parliament, a Minister of the Crown may by regulations amend this section.”

This new clause amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides for the establishment of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (“MAPPA”), to make arrangements for serial domestic abuse or stalking perpetrators to be registered on VISOR and be subjected to supervision, monitoring and management through MAPPA.

New clause 34—Threat to disclose private photographs and films with intent to cause distress—

In the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, after section 13 insert—

“33A Threat to disclose private photographs and films with intent to cause distress

(1) It is an offence for a person to threaten to disclose a private sexual photograph or film of a person to whom they are personally connected without the consent of an individual who appears in the photograph or film if the threat is made to either—

(a) the individual who appears in the photograph or film, or

(b) another individual who is intended to tell the individual who appears in the photograph or film,

(2) But it is not an offence under this section for the person to threaten to disclose the photograph or film to the individual mentioned in subsection (1)(a).

(3) For the meaning of “consent” see section 33(7)(a).

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable —

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both), and

(b) (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine (or both).

(5) (5) For the purposes of this section, “personally connected” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020.”

New clause 35—Duty to co-operate: children awaiting NHS treatment—

‘(1) The Commissioner must within 6 months after section 14 comes into force issue a request under that section to the NHS bodies in England mentioned in subsection (2) to co-operate with the Commissioner to secure that the objective set out in subsection (3) is met within 12 months after that section comes into force and continues to be met.

(2) The bodies are—

(a) every clinical commissioning group established under section 14D of the National Health Service Act 2006, and

(b) every other NHS body in England (as defined in section 14(7)) whose co-operation the Commissioner thinks is necessary to secure that the objective set out in subsection (3) is met.

(3) The objective is that where a child affected by domestic abuse has been referred for NHS care or treatment in the area (“Area A”) of a clinical commissioning group as a result of being so affected moves to the area (“Area B”) of another clinical commissioning group, the child receives that care or treatment no later than it would have been received in Area A.”

New clause 36—School admissions—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months after this section comes into force, secure that the school admissions code issued for England under section 84 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 (“1998 Act”) contains such provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary to achieve the objective set out in subsection (5).

(2) The Secretary of State must secure that the Commissioner is consulted about any proposed provision under subsection (1).

(3) The Welsh Ministers must, within six months after this section comes into force, secure that the Welsh Government school admissions code issued under section 84 of the 1998 Act contains such provision as the Welsh Ministers consider necessary to achieve the objective set out in subsection (5).

(4) The Welsh Ministers must secure that the Commissioner is consulted about any proposed provision under subsection (3).

(5) The objective is that—

(a) oversubscription criteria for admission to any school to which the school admissions code applies give the same priority to children falling within subsection (6) as to looked-after children (within the meaning of section 22(1) of the Children Act 1989), and

(b) the Code contains appropriate guidance about admission of children who have moved home to avoid domestic abuse or who are otherwise affected by domestic abuse.

(6) A child falls within this subsection if the child—

(a) is in the care of, or provided with accommodation by, a body exercising a function in respect of children affected by domestic abuse which, if the body were a local authority, would be a social services function of the kind mentioned in section 22(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989, or

(b) has moved home as a result of being affected by domestic abuse.”

Amendment 3, clause 1, page 1, line 15, after “abuse”, insert “(see subsection (4A))”

This amendment would provide the ability to further define specific abuse.

Amendment 25, page 2, line 3, after “that” insert

“, unless A believed they were acting in B’s best interest and the behaviour in all the circumstances was reasonable,”

This amendment is alternative to Amendment 1. It clarifies that economic abuse has to be unreasonable and not cover incidents of the withholding of money where it is intended to be in a person‘s best interest – e.g. someone caring for another or the partner of a gambling addict who gives consent. This amendment uses similar wording to the defence for controlling and coercive behaviour.

Amendment 1,  page 2, line 3, after “effect”, insert “without permission, consent, necessity or any other good reason”

The aim of this amendment would be to specify that economic abuse has to be deliberate and unreasonable not just the withholding of money, for example, with lawful authority or good reason – e.g. someone caring for someone or the partner of a gambling addict who gives consent etc.

Amendment 2,  page 2, line 5, leave out “acquire, use or maintain money or other property” and insert

“maintain their own money or personal property”

The aim of this amendment would be to specify that economic abuse must involve the person’s own money and not the lawful property of someone else.

Amendment 4,  page 2, line 6, at end insert—

‘(4A) “Psychological, emotional or other abuse” includes but is not limited to—

(a) parental alienation, false allegations of domestic abuse by A against B, or

(b) A deliberately preventing B having contact with their child or children for no good reason.”

This amendment gives specific examples of domestic abuse – parental alienation, false allegations of domestic abuse and the prevention of contact with a parent for no good reason.

Amendment 24,  page 2, line 6, at end insert—

‘(4A) “Psychological, emotional or other abuse” includes but is not limited to—

(a) parental alienation, or

(b) A deliberately preventing B having contact with their child or children for no good reason.”

This amendment is alternative to Amendment 4. It gives specific examples of domestic abuse – parental alienation and the prevention of contact with a parent for no good reason.

Amendment 5, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

‘(4B) “Parental alienation” is defined as a child’s resistance or hostility towards parent B which is not justified and is the result of psychological manipulation by parent A.”

This amendment defines parental alienation.

Amendment 6, page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (5)

This amendment removes the potential creation of two victims of a single act of abuse.

Amendment 7,  page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (6)

This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 6.

Amendment 11, clause 6, page 4, line 3, after “the” insert “objective”

This amendment aims to ensure there is no bias and that pre-conceived notions do not form part of the identification of domestic abuse process.

Amendment 12,  page 4, line 8, after “abuse” insert “;

(e) a gender-neutral approach to domestic abuse”

This amendment would recognise explicitly that domestic violence affects everyone regardless of their sex.

Amendment 13,  page 4, line 23, at end insert—

“(h) monitoring the estimated number of actual victims of domestic abuse compared to those prosecuted for such offences according to the sex of the victim and making recommendations to address any differences in outcomes between the sexes;”

This amendment would make sure that male and female perpetrators of domestic abuse are prosecuted in similar relative numbers.

Amendment 14,  page 4, line 23, at end insert—

“(i) monitoring the estimated number of actual victims of domestic abuse in same sex relationships by gender.”

This amendment would ensure that those in same sex relationships are separately monitored in line with the gender neutral approach to domestic abuse.

Amendment 40, clause 7, page 5, line 2, leave out “the Secretary of State” and insert “Parliament”

This amendment changes the provision enabling the Commissioner to report to the Secretary of State to one enabling the Commissioner to report to Parliament.

Amendment 41,  page 5, line 5, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—

‘(3) The Commissioner must ensure that no material is included in the report which—

(a) might jeopardise the safety of any person, or

(b) might prejudice the investigation or prosecution of an offence.

(4) The Commissioner must send a copy of any report published under this section to the Secretary of State.”

This amendment is linked to Amendment 40.

Amendment 15, clause 11, page 6, line 38, after “Board”)” insert

“through an open recruitment process”

This amendment would ensure that members of the Advisory Board are appointed via an open recruitment process.

Amendment 19,  page 7, line 7, after the first “of” insert

“each of (a) male and (b) female”

This amendment would ensure that different people separately representing the interests of male and female victims are appointed to the Advisory Board.

Amendment 46,  page 7, line 7, after “abuse” insert—

“in England;

“(aa) at least one person appearing to the Commissioner to represent the interests of victims of domestic abuse in Wales”

This amendment would require representation for domestic abuse victims in Wales, ensuring that both the interests of domestic abuse victims in England and Wales are equally addressed.

Amendment 20,  page 7, line 9, after “with” insert

“each of (a) male and (b) female”

This amendment would ensure that different people separately representing the interests of male and female organisations are on the Advisory Board.

Amendment 16,  page 7, line 11, leave out paragraph (c)

This amendment would remove the necessity for a representative of health care providers to be on the Advisory Board to make space for representatives of both male and female victims/groups.

Amendment 17, page 7, line 14, leave out paragraph (d)

This amendment would remove the necessity for a representative of social care providers to be on the Advisory Board to make space for representatives of both male and female victims/groups.

Amendment 44,  page 7, line 21, after “abuse” insert “;

(g) at least one person appearing to the Commissioner to represent the interests of charities and other voluntary organisations that work with victims of sexual violence and abuse that amounts to domestic abuse in England”

This amendment will add a representative of sexual violence and abuse specialist services in a domestic context to the Commissioner’s advisory board.

Amendment 18, page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (6)

This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 17.

Amendment 42, clause 13, page 8, line 16, leave out from “must” to “on” and insert “report to Parliament”

This amendment changes the requirement for the Commissioner to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State to a requirement to report to Parliament.

Amendment 43,  page 8, line 25, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—

‘(3) The Commissioner must arrange for a copy of every annual report under this section to be laid before Parliament.

(4) Before laying the report before Parliament, the Commissioner must ensure that no material is included in the report which—

(a) might jeopardise the safety of any person, or

(b) might prejudice the investigation or prosecution of an offence.”

This amendment is linked to Amendment 42.

Amendment 21, clause 55, page 36, line 11, after the first “of” insert

“each of (a) male and (b) female”

This amendment would ensure that different people separately represent the interests of both male and female victims on the domestic abuse local partnership boards.

Amendment 22,  page 36, line 15, after “with” insert

“each of (a) male and (b) female”

This amendment would ensure that different people separately represent the interests of both male and female organisations on the domestic abuse local partnership boards.

Amendment 45,  page 36, line 22, after “area” insert “;

(h) at least one person appearing to the authority to represent the interests of charities and other voluntary organisations that work with victims of sexual violence and abuse that amounts to domestic abuse in its area”

This amendment adds a representative of Sexual Violence and Abuse specialist services in a domestic context to the Local Authority’s advisory partnership.

Government amendments 27 to 29.

Amendment 26, page 46, line 38, leave out Clause 64.

Amendment 8, clause 67, page 51, line 12, leave out paragraph (b)

This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 6.

Amendment 23,  page 51, line 15, at end insert—

‘(4) If it transpires that the local authority has been given incorrect information or that it has taken into account false allegations of domestic abuse as the basis for granting a tenancy, it must revoke the secure tenancy within 7 days of receiving this information by giving the tenant 28 days notice to quit in addition to passing on such information to the police, where they are not already involved, as soon as is practicable thereafter.”

This amendment makes provision for someone who has made false allegations of domestic abuse to lose the home they gained under these false pretences.

Amendment 35, clause 68, page 51, line 28, at end insert—

‘(2A) The Secretary of State must issue guidance under this section which takes account of evidence about the relationship between domestic abuse and offences involving hostility based on sex.

(2B) In preparing guidance under subsection (2A) the Secretary of State must require the chief officer of police of any police force to provide information relating to—

(a) the number of relevant crimes reported to the police force; and

(b) the number of relevant crimes reported to the police force which, in the opinion of the chief officer of police, have also involved domestic abuse.

(2C) In this section—

“chief officer of police” and “police force” have the same meaning as in section 65 of this Act;

“domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in section 1 of this Act;

“relevant crime” means a reported crime in which—

(a) the victim or any other person perceived the alleged offender, at the time of or immediately before or after the offence, to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on sex,

(b) the victim or any other person perceived the crime to be motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards persons who are of a particular sex, or

(c) the victim or any other person perceived the crime to follow a course of conduct pursued by the alleged offender towards the victim that was motivated by hostility based on sex;

“sex” has the same meaning as in section 11 of the Equality Act 2010.”

Amendment 47,  page 51, line 28, at end insert—

‘(2A) The Secretary of State must issue separate statutory guidance on domestic abuse that also constitutes teenage relationship abuse and such guidance must address how to ensure there are—

(a) sufficient levels of local authority service provision for both victims and perpetrators of teenage relationship abuse,

(b) child safeguarding referral pathways for both victims and perpetrators of teenage relationship abuse.

(2B) The guidance in subsection (2A) must be published within three months of the Act receiving Royal Assent and must be reviewed bi-annually.

(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2A), teenage relationship abuse is defined as any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse, which can encompass, but is not limited to psychological, physical, sexual, economic and emotional abuse, including through the use of technology, between those aged 18 or under who are, or have been in a romantic relationship regardless of gender or sexual orientation.”

This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish separate statutory guidance on teenage relationship abuse. The statutory guidance would cover not just victims of teenage domestic abuse but extend to those who perpetrate abuse within their own teenage relationships.

Amendment 9,  page 51, line 30, leave out from “that” to the end of line 31 and insert

“victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse in England and Wales are both male and female.”

This amendment removes the sex specific reference to females, to include male victims of domestic abuse and reflect the fact that both men and women are perpetrators of domestic abuse.

Government amendment 30.

Amendment 10, page 51, line 31, after “female”, insert

“and this should in no way exclude male victims from the protection of domestic abuse legislation and services for survivors.”

This amendment is an alternative to Amendment 9.

Government amendments 36, 37, 31, 32, 38, 33, 34 and 39.

[Victoria Atkins]

Homes should be places of love and safety, but for 2.4 million people across the country they are not. We want the abuse to stop, and we want victims to live, peaceful, safe and happy lives. That is why the Government are bringing forward this Domestic Abuse Bill.

Domestic abuse does not just affect adults. It affects the children living in abusive households too. The Government have always recognised the devastating impact that domestic abuse has on a child who sees, hears or experiences it. Indeed, the need to consider the effects on children runs through the Bill, through the draft statutory guidance and in our non-legislative work. As I hope is acknowledged, our approach throughout the extensive scrutiny of the Bill has been to listen, and that is exactly what we have done. We have listened carefully to my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). We have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) in Committee, as well as other Members across the House, including the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who have encouraged us to do more. I am, therefore, pleased to introduce new clause 15 to the Bill, which states that children who see, hear or experience domestic abuse are victims.

As with the statutory definition in clauses 1 and 2, we expect the new clause to be adopted more generally by public authorities, frontline practitioners and others responding to domestic abuse. Indeed, it is vital that locally commissioned services consider and address the impact of domestic abuse on children.

We have also listened to the harrowing experiences of victims going through the family and civil courts. It is vital that victims of domestic abuse are supported to give their best evidence in court and to minimise the distress that this can cause. The Bill on introduction already ensured that victims of domestic abuse are automatically entitled to special measures in criminal proceedings, meaning that they can, for example, give evidence from behind a screen or via a video link. New clauses 16 and 17 now extend that automatic eligibility to victims giving evidence in family and civil proceedings.

In May last year, the Ministry of Justice established a panel of experts to review how the family courts deal with the risk of harm to children and parents in private law children’s cases involving domestic abuse and other serious offences. The panel received more than 1,200 submissions and the report was published just a couple of weeks ago. The submissions highlighted that many victims of domestic abuse feel extreme anxiety about appearing in the family court and coming face to face with the perpetrator. Anyone who has tracked the progress of this Bill, or who has worked with and listened to victims outside the confines of this Chamber, will know just how terrible some of those experiences can be. The panel has recommended that the provisions in the Bill concerning special measures in the criminal courts should apply to all private law children’s cases in which domestic abuse is alleged. New clause 16 does that, and new clause 17 achieves the same in civil proceedings.

However, we have gone further with regard to civil proceedings, as new clause 18 prohibits cross-examination in person where such cross-examination by the perpetrator is likely to diminish the quality of the witness’s evidence or would cause significant distress to the witness. This new clause also prevents the victim from having to cross-examine the alleged perpetrator in person, with counsel being appointed by the court, if necessary. In each scenario, such cross-examination can serve to re-traumatise victims and, again, prevent them from giving their best evidence in court. Cross-examination in person is already prohibited in the criminal courts. The Bill, on introduction, extended the prohibition to the family courts and, on the recent recommendation of the Civil Justice Council, we will now ensure that the bar applies across all courts. These changes will have a profound impact on victims in all our constituencies who are seeking justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

The right hon. Lady makes a point that I know would, at first blush, be attractive, but the problem is that we do not have that bedrock of evidence. We are coming to the Dispatch Box with an open heart, and I hope that it is acknowledged across the House that that has been our approach throughout the Bill proceedings. I do not know whether she has had a chance to read the report that we published last week into the work that the Home Office has done. There has been some very good work by charities, through the tampon tax funding and so on, but we are unable to put in the figures that we need to in order to undertake the sort of reform that she is urging upon us. We must have the data to ensure that anything that we are putting forward in the longer term best meets the needs of victims and is sustainable.

A person who comes to this country on, for example, a six-month visitor visa falls under one of the categories that one of the witnesses gave evidence to the Joint Committee on, in the evidence that was given to us as part of this review—the Southall Black Sisters. The right hon. Lady will know that people on visitor visas, who may be here for six months, will have made representations to the Home Office specifically on their financial circumstances, and we want to ensure that we can treat such people fairly and give them access to the help that they need. It is why we are very keen to focus on support rather than to follow the urgings of others that we deal with immigration status before we look at support. We want to help these victims to access help first and foremost as victims.

The pilot programme is to determine how we ensure that victims can obtain immediate access to support, and that any future strategy meets the immediate needs of victims and is fit for purpose. Support for migrant victims is a very important issue for all of us. We recognise that, which is why we are committed to launching the pilot project as quickly as possible. We are currently reviewing the options for implementing the pilot and expect to make further announcements in the summer, ahead of its launch in the autumn. We must resist the urge to act before we have the evidence on which to base comprehensive proposals, to ensure that measures are appropriate.

As I say, I want to give plenty of time to Members to debate the Bill at this important stage of its scrutiny. Before I do, I thank hon. Members—I hope I do not speak too soon—for the very constructive, collegiate approach we have taken, all of us, on this Bill. I know some very different viewpoints may be held on particular issues that will be debated in this Chamber this afternoon, but I know that the House will keep at the forefront of its mind that we are debating this Bill because we all want to help victims of domestic abuse and we all want the abuse to stop.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As the Minister has said, there is a lot of interest, not surprisingly, in wanting to take part in this debate. For the first four non-Government contributors, I will allow seven minutes, and thereafter the limit will be five minutes. Even with that, I am afraid not everybody is going to get in.

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

I would like to start by saying that we on the Labour Benches fully support all the Government’s new clauses and amendments today. Many of them and, in fact, many of the changes to the Bill since its very first draft, all those many moons ago, have been things that we on the Opposition side of the House have championed from both the Front and Back Benches. The Government have taken an approach throughout the whole process of this Bill of seeking always to try to improve it. For this, we are very grateful, and the victims in this country will be grateful. The Bill still has a number of processes to go through in the other place, and I very much hope that the Government will continue to have this attitude to positive change as the Bill progresses, although let us hope it progresses perhaps quicker than it has in the past.

To touch on a number of the Government’s amendments very briefly—in support—the changes suggested to the family courts were, by and large, amendments tabled by the Labour party in Committee, and they come hot on the heels of the Family Law Panel review, which was a very good, thorough and timely piece of work. I want to praise my hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Peter Kyle), for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who worked tirelessly on behalf of their constituents and victims across the country to seek that review. I make a very special mention of Women’s Aid, and of Rachel Williams, Sammy Woodhouse and Claire Throssell—all victims and campaigners who have pushed family law reform for victims of sexual and domestic violence through their own pain, suffering and loss.

The amendment on including children in the definition of domestic abuse was again an amendment tabled by the Labour party in Committee. For this, we are eternally grateful, and I look forward to seeing it in today’s amended Bill. Huge thanks for this go to all the children and young people who joined the campaign to speak of their experiences of living with domestic abuse and about how, without question, this had victimised them. I want to say thank you to Charlie Webster and, in memory of Karl, Jack and Daniel, we once again pay tribute to them. To all the children’s charities from national groups such as Action for Children, Barnardo’s, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Children’s Society to local grass-roots campaigners such as Free Your Mind in London, WE:ARE —Women’s Empowerment And Recovery Educators—in Birmingham and Wirral Women and Children’s Aid in Merseyside, I say thank you for all seeing those children and fighting for them.

As for amendments regarding the rough sex defence, so ably championed by my inimitable right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and the new hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), as well as by the brilliant campaign We Can’t Consent To This, I simply want to say one thing. Natalie Connolly’s name and story has rung out around this Chamber and been told in many newspapers, and the bravery of her family will see this law changed. Today, I do not want to remember her for how she died or to allow a violent man to get to say what her story was. I simply want to remember Natalie, a brilliant, beautiful, bright mother, sister, daughter—a woman who had a story all of her own about the things she loved and cared for. I hope that now the story of Natalie Connolly can be that: one that centres her as a human, just like all of us, not the story that somebody else told.

As the Minister has alluded to, we are debating new clause 23, which stands in my name and that of the Leader of the Opposition, and we return to what seems now like an age-old issue: how we deal with victims of domestic abuse with no recourse to public funds. In Committee, the Minister and I disagreed over the terminology for who we were talking about. I decided to refer to our care workers, NHS workers, people in this building serving us our drinks, to highlight the kind of people I was talking about when I referred to people with no recourse to public funds. The Minister, quite rightly, cited evidence of asylum seekers or even those with irregular immigration status.

Fundamentally, it does not matter on which rhetorical side of the fence we fall. We are talking about people, humans, who, when they have been raped, beaten, controlled and abused, before we ask them how we can help, first we ask what stamp is in their passport. This cannot be right. What is more, the situation as it is today is not only hindering support to victims; it is helping to leave rapists, abusers and violent perpetrators on our streets.

Since our debate in Committee, a number of police officers from across the country have been in touch with me. This is what they told me. One officer said:

“For years now, we have faced difficulties trying to effectively safeguard subjects of very serious offences. There are some things in place, such as the destitution domestic violence concession, but this process can take weeks to sort. The refuges are usually very helpful, but they obviously cannot operate without being paid, so we are often left with subjects being isolated in hotels for weeks, which is a bad outcome for everyone.”

Another officer from a different force got in touch and said:

“The current situation has a serious impact on the police’s safeguarding duties. It also has a knock-on effect on our ability to investigate domestic abuse as crimes, since officers are distracted by the need to find alternative safe accommodation and support, rather than concentrate on their primary role, which is to investigate the commission of potential criminal offences.”

The Minister is right to seek evidence, so I have looked to my own force, in the west midlands, which is a place obviously close to my heart. There the police public protection unit last year, out of police force funding, spent £23,161 on temporary accommodation. While some of this will have been due to the pressure on refuge places, I understand from the force that a common reason is accommodating out of police resources victims with no recourse to public funds. As the Minister seeks to gather evidence, I wonder if she will ask every police force how much police money—money that could fund a police officer—they are spending on such temporary accommodation.

The Government’s own draft guidance essentially admits that no recourse to public funds is a barrier to women getting out of abusive situations. In the Government’s words:

“Victims who have entered the UK from overseas may face additional barriers when attempting to escape domestic abuse that are related to their lack of access to public services and funds, leading to higher dependence on the partner or family that has supported their being in the UK. This may be exploited by partners or family members to exert control over victims.”

The police are saying this is a problem, all the expert charities bar none are saying it is a problem, Members of Parliament who face these issues every day are saying it is a problem, and the Government’s own guidance highlights that it is a problem and is being used by perpetrators, so why do we not seek to fix the problem? Our new clause seeks to meet the Government in the middle using what they suggested in Committee. We are suggesting that for the year of the pilot project outlined by the Government they trial the end to no recourse to public funds for victims of domestic abuse.



We have listened to the Government’s concerns regarding the pathways to settled status and essentially pleaded with Ministers to test whether giving these victims access to public funds will make a difference. The experts all say it will. Although I recognise what Ministers are saying about needing hard data, you cannot prove a negative; we will never know how many people turned up for help but were turned away because access was not available to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We move on to the seven-minute limit.

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

May I say how much I welcome the fact that the Bill has returned for its Report stage and Third Reading? This is a very important Bill. I will not be able to speak on Third Reading, so I shall take this opportunity to thank the Ministers who have shown their significant commitment to the Bill in taking it through the Committee and the House. I thank all the officials in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, who I know, from my time in the Home Office, also have a very real commitment to seeing that we have improved legislation to help the victims of domestic abuse. I also thank all Members of this House, because this is truly a Bill where there has been cross-party support and where every effort has been made to ensure that the Bill can go through in the best shape that it can. I will come to an area where there is obviously, as we have seen, a difference of opinion across the Chamber, but I think that this has been an excellent example of the House at its best, working with Government to improve the lives of victims up and down the country.

I want to welcome, particularly, two of the amendments that the Government have put forward—first, new clause 15, which relates to children. I have said before in the Chamber that this is, as my hon. Friend the Minister referenced, an important area. For too long, we turned a blind eye to the impact that domestic abuse had on children in a home in which that abuse was taking place. It is absolutely right that we should now recognise that those children are also affected. Their lives are affected and for so many, their whole future adulthood has been affected by what they have experienced, seen or heard within their home, where domestic abuse is taking place.

I also particularly welcome the way in which the Government have dealt with the issue of the rough sex defence. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for the campaign that they have fought to keep this at the forefront of thinking and ensure that some changes could be made in relation to the Bill.

I want to pick up on what is—as is clear from what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), has just said—an area of disagreement across the Chamber in relation to migrant women. I and others across the House will of course have dealt with cases of constituents who have come to this country, very often with the hope and expectation that they would marry and have a happy and settled life here in the future, only to find themselves the victims of domestic abuse and to find that their immigration status, or their uncertain immigration status, is used by their abusers as a further way to abuse them and keep them within that abusive relationship. Obviously the DDVC acted in relation to those who are here on partner visas, but there is concern that there are those who still fall through the net and find themselves unable to access the support necessary for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We move to a five-minute limit.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

May I start by thanking the Minister for the helpful and courteous way that she has navigated this Bill through the House over the years? I was a member of the draft Bill Committee and then of the Bill Committee that met just before the general election in 2019. I have watched with interest as the Bill has developed and, I am in no doubt, improved. I also thank my own party’s Front-Bench team for their work and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), for her tireless campaigning.

The issue that I want the House to consider today is one that has not been discussed before in all the hours of debate around domestic abuse, and it has arisen out of the covid-19 pandemic and the steps that the Government have taken to ensure that women could access reproductive healthcare services during lockdown. The Government made it very clear that that was going to be a temporary measure and that it would be revoked as soon as possible. Although the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee chided me in her contribution for tabling new clause 28, I am sure that she will understand that the opportunities to raise these matters are very few and far between and it seems to me that if you don’t go fishing, you don’t catch any fish.

New clause 28 is supported by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, the British Society of Abortion Care Providers, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Marie Stopes, the End Violence Against Women Coalition and Women’s Aid. Hon. Members will be aware that current abortion law restricts the ability of healthcare professionals to provide care to women. The Abortion Act 1967 requires that abortion takes place on licensed premises.

That means that, outside covid regulations, women have to attend a clinic or hospital to administer the first pill as part of an early medical abortion, even if a woman is unable to safely attend a clinic because she is in an abusive relationship.

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

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford]

I am glad for that intervention. I am not here to say whose job it is, but one thing I can say is that I do not want rapists or paedophiles over here. If they can be deported, let them be deported. Let them be detained. That is what I stand for: strong law and order.

Rather than imposing 28-day limits, we should ensure that the whole asylum and removal system works much faster and more efficiently. Currently, the legal process can take years with protracted appeals. I am pleased that the Government are considering reforms to ensure that genuine asylum claimants can claim asylum faster, that decisions are made more quickly, and that delays will be eliminated. That is the efficiency of a Conservative Government. This will benefit not only communities such as Rother Valley, but those who find themselves in the system. The changes mean that the numbers in immigration detention will drop. I am proud that this Government are taking real action on immigration after decades of mismanagement by Labour. We in Rother Valley and across South Yorkshire know more than most about the Labour party ignoring our wants and needs. We have taken note of the fact that Labour voted against ending free movement and taking back control of our borders, yet again dismissing the will of the British people. Labour voted against our immigration Bill on Second Reading and the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has declared that he would bring back freedom of movement if he were ever to become Prime Minister.

Labour cannot be trusted with control of our borders and it has proved that time and again. This Bill marks a new beginning for Rother Valley and for the United Kingdom as we exit the EU transition period and bounce back from coronavirus. We must build back better, build back greener, and build back faster. A sensible robust immigration system that works for Britain plays a central role in this strategy and guarantees a bright new future for my constituency and for our country. This Bill, unamended, does that. We promised this in 2019 and we are delivering. We are a Government who deliver. We are taking back control of our borders while those on the Opposition Benches want open borders.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The time limit is now five minutes and it is likely to be reduced further later on.

--- Later in debate ---

Therefore, we need to know now what the Government’s intentions are and we need to secure new clause 37 so that we can monitor the impact of their policies. I ask the Minister: what kind of future do they envisage for our creative industries? What kind of reciprocity do they foresee on social security arrangements and other practical limitations on the ability of those working in the creative industries and the arts to work elsewhere in Europe? How do they plan to underpin the ability of some of our finest artists, our best musicians and our most talented creatives to work across the continent, and the ability of their partners in the creative pursuits to work here? This could have a massive impact on the future of one of Britain’s most important sectors.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Liz Saville Roberts.

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

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Dirprwy Lefarydd.

I rise to speak to new clause 11 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), and to support the amendments in the names of the right hon. Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald).

Immigrants have always played an integral part in the vitality of our communities, but we have been told, of course, that covid-19 changes everything. That prompts the question: does it change how we handle immigration as much as it does our approach to health and the economy? There has been some interesting mention of the value of the high-skilled jobs that we will expect from this immigration policy, but it is worth taking a step back and considering how things have changed under covid. I understand that 70% of people believe that the crisis has shown the key role of immigrants in running our essential services—the essential services that we have been clapping on the streets for many Thursdays; I think there is another clap here on Sunday—while 64% of people say that they now value so-called low-skilled overseas workers. We are now looking at who provides our services, and how, in a different way.

Surely what we have here is a hostile, inhumane immigration environment, and that is exactly what we should be questioning. Does such an immigration policy reflect the sort of society that we hope to be after covid-19? Plaid Cymru’s proposal in new clause 11 challenges how this Bill presents a radical change in UK immigration policy without allowing a thorough debate about the details of its replacement or the implications—although, as can be seen from the nature of the amendments, there is much concern about those implications. Before we legislate, we should have a proper comprehension of the following: the impact of discriminatory “no recourse to public funds” conditions; the impact of NHS charging; the merits of removing all fees for visas and citizenship applications; and the merits of devolving powers over immigration to our nations, recognising the different needs of the different nations.

Finally—crucially, in the current context—our new clause calls on the Government to investigate the possibility of granting citizenship to all health and social care workers who have given so much during this crisis. A former Government did the right thing and granted citizenship to the Gurkhas. Health and social care immigrant workers have been fighting heroically on two fronts. They have fought on our behalf against the virus; they are now facing having to fight a hostile environment in the Government’s immigration policy. The new clause would be a means to right that wrong; it would reflect the public mood, and I beg the Government to consider adopting it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am afraid that this Bill fails on every conceivable measure of a humane and just immigration policy, and I am concerned that my constituents are particularly vulnerable to the predatory aspects of this legislation. Some 43% of Leicester East residents were born outside the UK, as opposed to 10% nationally, and our citizens hail from over 50 countries around the globe. This diversity is what makes our city special, yet with a two-week lockdown extension announced in my home city, this Bill fails to protect its most vulnerable citizens. To ensure that every Leicester resident can seek the medical help they need during this increase in coronavirus, it is vital for full citizenship rights to be extended to undocumented workers, those with no recourse to public funds and people with no indefinite leave to remain, yet the Bill fails to provide the necessary protections.

Under most visa categories, migrants who are legally in the UK working and paying tax cannot access publicly funded support. The Migration Observatory estimates that nearly 1.5 million people currently have no recourse to public funds, including those with children who were born in the UK. For people who already face uncommonly difficult challenges in their daily lives, this pandemic has only deepened fears over how to maintain an income, remain healthy or even stay alive. Citizens Advice has recorded a 110% increase in people seeking advice about having no recourse to public funds during the pandemic, and a recent report from the Children’s Society found that almost half of children whose parents were born abroad live in poverty. The Government must introduce an amnesty for all migrants, including residency rights, for the duration of this pandemic and end the callous policy of no recourse to public funds.

An estimated 1 million undocumented workers lack any entitlement to support from the state. Many of these people are destitute and living in the shadows, unable to access healthcare and fearful of what will happen to them if they identify themselves. In nearly all cases, undocumented people are not criminals but simply those who have fallen through the cracks of the Government’s callous hostile environment policies. For people forced to endure this level of insecurity, it is impossible to comply with Government guidance on self-isolation and social distancing. With the overwhelming rise in coronavirus cases in my constituency and with a rate of infection that is beyond acceptable, it is imperative and in the best interests of everyone in our country that the basic needs of all our residents are met, especially given the disproportionate impact of covid-19.

The tragic irony is that many undocumented people, or those with no recourse to public funds who are living in constant fear of the state, work in the frontline services that the Government have been at pains the praise during this crisis. We must ensure that all frontline workers, regardless of their immigration status, are valued and protected as we rebuild our economy and society. It is vital that we repay the extraordinary contribution of frontline workers during the pandemic with a permanent extension of migrant rights. That means an end to the hostile environment, shutting detention centres and granting indefinite leave to remain for anyone living in the UK. In Leicester, the coronavirus pandemic has caused widespread suffering for too many individuals and communities, with widespread job losses—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sorry but we have to move on.

[Paul Blomfield]

There is clearly much to comment on in this Bill, but I rise specifically to speak in support of new clause 7 and to commend the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for the powerful case that he made in speaking to it. Back in 2014, I was pleased to serve as vice-chair of a cross-party inquiry into immigration detention. We included parliamentarians from both Houses and all the main parties, many with huge experience, including a former Law Lord and a former chief inspector of prisons. There were more Government Members than Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who also spoke powerfully on this issue a few moments ago. I pay tribute to Sarah Teather, who chaired the inquiry and who now leads the Jesuit Refugee Service UK, as others have mentioned. After an eight-month inquiry, our recommendations included the limit on detention that is proposed in new clause 7. That was endorsed by the House of Commons in September 2014, so it is disappointing that we are still discussing the issue—but it is important that we are, because, contrary to some suggestions, it is not a particularly controversial proposal.

The truth is that we have become too dependent on detention, which takes place in immigration removal centres. The clue to the purpose of those centres is in the title. They are intended for short-term stays, but the Home Office has become increasingly reliant on them, under successive Governments. Home Office policy states that detention must be used sparingly, but the reality is different.

In our evidence we heard from many organisations, NGOs and so on, but, most powerfully, we heard from those in detention over a phone link. One young man from a disputed territory on the border between Nigeria and Cameroon told us that he was trafficked to Hungary as a 16-year-old, where he was beaten, raped and tortured. He managed to escape and eventually made his way to Heathrow, using a false passport, which was discovered on arrival, and he was detained. He told us that he had been in detention for three years. His detention conflicts with the stated aims of the Home Office in three respects—that those who have been trafficked should not be detained, that those who have been tortured should not be detained and that detention should be for the shortest possible period. His case is not the only one. There are more people like him than there are so-called foreign national offenders, which the Home Office briefers urged Members to refer to. Time and again, we were told that detention was worse than prison, because in prison you know when you are going to get out. One former detainee said:

“The uncertainty is hard to bear. Your life is in limbo. No one tells you anything about how long you will stay or if you are going to get deported.”

A medical expert told us that the sense of being in limbo, of hopelessness and despair is what leads to deteriorating mental health, and that

“those who were detained for over 30 days had significantly higher mental health problems”.

It is not simply the impact on detainees that demands change. A team leader from the prisons inspectorate told us that the lack of a time limit encourages poor case working, saying that,

“a quarter of the cases of prolonged detention that they looked at were a result of inefficient case-working.”

It has become too easy for the Home Office to use administrative detention, and that is what needs to be challenged. The Home Secretary talked about the culture change in the Home Office only a few days ago, in response to the Windrush review. Removing indefinite immigration detention would make a significant contribution to achieving that culture change, because with no time limits, it has simply become too easy for people to be detained, for too long, with no meaningful way of challenging that detention.

Our report gave a number of examples of alternatives to detention, which are being used by countries often held up as hard on immigration, such as Australia. We know that the Home Office is developing pilots on community-based alternatives, including one at Yarl’s Wood, which is a year in and is running well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely reasonable point. I am sure that the Minister, who will have listened to the reasonable points that have been made on both sides of the House, but particularly on his own side, will take it on board.

The absence of a time limit does nothing to promote speed and efficiency in the administration of justice by the immigration service. I believe that the introduction of one would improve working practices, as well as creating a more humane system of immigration control.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There are eight people on the call list and we have just over half an hour. If everybody sticks to four minutes, even if they take an intervention, we will get everybody in. Help your colleagues, please.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

I want primarily to address new clause 12, which appears in my name and the names of other hon. Members, but I will first make a couple of other points. I agree with the many Members on both sides of the House who have spoken in opposition to the hostile environment. To those who are, in a sense, celebrating the end of freedom of movement, I stress that it has worked both ways. It has also provided opportunities for UK citizens inside the European Union, which we are now walking away from.



I want to make a few detailed comments on new clause 33, of which I am a co-sponsor. The ending of freedom of movement in relation to Northern Ireland brings some potential distortions, above and beyond the challenges facing the UK economy and society overall. Northern Ireland exists in both a UK-wide and all-Ireland context. Under the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, we stay in the single market with respect to goods, but the four fundamental freedoms are interconnected. That includes the freedom of movement and the ability to engage services. The protocol makes reference to the wider context of north-south co-operation. That will create some degree of difficulty, particularly for EEA nationals who are engaged in enterprises that operate on both sides of the border in Ireland. We run the risk of seeing industries that depend heavily upon labour from elsewhere in Europe not being competitive any longer and moving out of Northern Ireland, southwards into the Republic of Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)]

I was pleased to serve on the Bill Committee, which was my first in this place. It was a whole five days of my life that I will never get back, but it was very enjoyable and informative. I particularly enjoyed the submissions from the Migration Advisory Committee, the Federation of Small Businesses and No5 Chambers, a Birmingham law firm. It was good to see a Birmingham firm down here contributing to our national debate. I cannot say that I agreed with most of what it said, but it was good that it was contributing.

A number of Government Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and for Winchester (Steve Brine), have mentioned the real genesis of the hostile environment. They named him, but he is actually a Member of this place—the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who was also the architect of austerity, because we all remember the little note he left behind as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He still sits on the Labour Benches. Labour MP after Labour MP stand up and complain about the hostile environment and austerity, but sat among them is the architect of austerity and the hostile environment. That is the sort of double standards that I do not want to see representing the west midlands in the mayoral election next year.

The ending of free movement of labour is a key cornerstone of the manifesto that I stood on in December and something that I am keen to get into legislation as quickly as possible. People have been calling for this for many years and many a politician have ignored their wishes. Included in this points-based system are things such as having a job offer or a sponsor before coming here, or being able to speak English sufficiently well, or meeting tougher criminality checks. Those are the sorts of things that people have been calling for and I am pleased that I am supporting those measures in this Bill tonight.

On the issue of immigration detention, I say to my colleagues that I hear their concerns, but I am convinced that immigration detention is used as a last resort. It is an absolutely necessary tool to ensure that we keep people safe on the streets of our country.

As my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) and for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) mentioned, the list of people who would possibly have been released early had we put in place a 28-day limit would have made it hard for me to look any of my electors in the eye. I would not have been able to say that I had allowed those people on the streets early when I was out door-knocking. It is not as if those people are just banged up and forgotten about; they have rights. If they think their immigration detention is unfair, they can apply to a judge, and their case is often heard within a matter of days. Anyone wishing to leave immigration detention can do so at any time by simply leaving the country. I agree that, in general, the whole asylum and removal system needs to work much faster, but we also need to have a tough and robust system in place.

Many Opposition Members would have us believe that, if we did not have EU migration, the social care sector and the NHS would fall apart overnight, but as we heard in the evidence sessions from Brian Bell from the MAC, only 5% of the social care sector comes from EU migration. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said that she thought the Bill had been written before the covid crisis. I can tell her that, a couple of weeks ago, during the crisis, the latest claimant count from my constituency was 10.2%. Is she and many other Labour Members—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We have to move on, sorry.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I speak in support of new clause 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), and new clause 36, tabled by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), both of which I have signed.

The largest employer in my constituency is the University of St Andrews. I visited there back in February as part of the Royal Society’s parliamentary pairing scheme. I enjoyed seeing the amazing work that is being undertaken by researchers from across the EU and beyond and supported by EU funding. Their status and the funding that supports their ground-breaking work are both at risk. As of May 2020, more than 9,000 EU nationals in Fife have applied for settled status, yet nearly 4,000 are either still waiting for a final decision or have only been granted pre-settled status. I am not convinced that the Home Office will be properly able to manage the settled status applications of my constituents and the 3 million other EU citizens living in this country. Providing no certainty is no way to treat them. A British Futures report estimates that the difficulties in navigating the application system and the lack of awareness of the process will result in 175,000 EU citizens living in the UK with an insecure immigration status or no status at all. We risk the denial of legal rights of jobs, homes and medical care to EU nationals who are entitled to them but cannot prove it, and that is not right. That is why I speak in favour of new clause 38, which would ensure that all EU citizens have settled status and require the Government to make available physical proof of that status.

A particular concern has been raised with me by constituents relating to comprehensive sickness insurance and I thank Fife4europe for its representations to me in this regard. CSI was not a requirement for settled status until Government policy appeared to change on 15 May this year. EU citizens who are students or classed as self-sufficient do now need it. That is unjust. There was no CSI requirement for a number of years, and many of my constituents who are EU citizens are understandably concerned. There are some urgent questions for the Government to answer. Why has the requirement been introduced at this time? What are the reasons for it? What steps are the Secretary of State and the Minister taking to ensure that EU nationals are aware of this new requirement? Will it be applied retrospectively? What does it mean for applications currently being considered? I ask the Minister to provide clarity on this issue.

There has been little communication, zero justification and the cloud of uncertainty over EU citizens is growing. My constituents are concerned that the retrospective application of the CSI requirement could be used to prevent people from attaining settled status and prevent those who do have settled status from gaining citizenship. The fact that EU citizens in my constituency are worried about this indicates the total lack of trust and communication between the Government and these individuals, who have been left frustrated and concerned by intolerable delays. Therefore, I urge Members to support new clause 36 in the name of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, which would ensure that not having CSI could not be used to disqualify an EU citizen with settled status from citizenship

Finally, I would like briefly to address the role for workers in our agricultural sector.  I welcome new clause 37, tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, which would require the Government to publish data on where skill shortages are in our economy. If we do not have the data, we will not be able properly to assess our agricultural needs. Farms in my constituency have access to the seasonal workers pilot scheme, but it is clear that we need a lot more people to be able to come here to work under the scheme. The figure of 10,000 was almost plucked from thin air. It was clearly never going to be sufficient.

Obviously there are challenges this year in relation to covid, but farmers are being told that they need almost to go back in time in how they harvest their crops, and that is simply not sustainable. I commend the local workers who are working on our farms—some during furlough—but we should note that fruit picking is no longer some part-time hobby occupation. These are operations with multiple complex supply chains that cannot operate on a hand-to-mouth basis while waiting to hear what crumbs the Government are going to provide to augment the workforce. I must also mention that many of the workers who come from abroad also train other people. The Government simply have to do more in this regard.

Covid-19: Asylum Seeker Services in Glasgow

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

I am sorry but the Minister is talking absolute crap—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Please withdraw that.

[David Linden]

I withdraw the word “crap”, but the Minister is talking absolute nonsense. He talks about how welcoming the UK is. They are the same UK Government that had “Go Home” vans going round communities, and the hostile environment. I suggest that he cuts the talk about DFID, which has been abolished this week, and focuses on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens).

Public Order

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) [V]]

[Inaudible.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Kate, I am terribly sorry, but I cannot hear you, and I suspect the Home Secretary cannot either. We will try to come back to you when that issue can be resolved.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I echo the remarks that have been made paying tribute to the work done by the police force in the face of such horrific mindless violence and acts at the weekend, but may I draw the Home Secretary’s attention to the fact that many of us are concerned that we are yet to see the details of the review the Prime Minister has announced? It threatens to be a distraction from the real problem at the moment, which is that so many BAME communities in this country feel that they are the disproportionate victims of stop and search and many other inequalities. We have to address those inequalities and we have to act now. We cannot allow this review to be a distraction and yet another review that sits on a Whitehall shelf, paying lip service to action rather than actually providing the action that we need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. She will know through her own work on her Select Committee, the Women and Equalities Committee—I pay tribute to her for the work that she is undertaking—that there are a range of inequalities that cover all sorts of aspects, whether it is ethnicity, race, gender or sex, and it is right that we find ways to work together to act in a responsible way to find the right solutions and drive the right outcomes. I think that all right hon. and hon. Members have a responsibility to show leadership on this, in our own constituencies but also at national level. We must give voice where we find injustice and inequality, but we must also do right by that inequality and find the right kind of outcomes and solutions.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement.

Sentencing (Pre-Consolidation Amendments) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

3rd reading & Committee stage & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

Mr Nigel Evans in the Chair

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I should explain, as was explained yesterday, that although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during Committee stage, in these exceptional circumstances, and in order to comply with social distancing requirements, I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker, but of Chairman of the Committee.

Clause 1

Consolidation of sentencing legislation: amendment of law for old offences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 2 to 5 stand part, and schedules 1 and 2 stand part.