Ten-Year Drugs Strategy

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. If everybody could resume their seats. As you can see, there is a lot of interest in this. We still have three other bits of business following this so, please, no statements—just ask questions, so I can get in as many people as I possibly can.

[Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

May I commend my right hon. Friend on his statement and on the drugs strategy that he and I worked on together? In particular, I commend Dame Carol Black’s recommendations 17 to 19 relating to the Ministry of Justice—on the treatment of prisoners in custody, arrangements for release and, indeed, the issue of a co-ordinator role in the probation service to join up those vital support services. Will he make sure that those provisions in particular are carried out as soon as possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

As I said earlier, we hope that those who design the local frameworks to bring about the recovery chains that we want to see will take account of the skills and facilities that can be provided by the third sector, but in the hon. Lady ‘s constituency that will obviously be a matter for the Scottish Government.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and for answering questions for more than an hour.

Approved Premises (Substance Testing) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

What is your feeling about what the current prevalence is? You mentioned four different drug groups and the extent of the testing required. When the testing happens, what do you expect the most prevalent drugs will be?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Just a reminder not to use the word “you”, please.

[Rob Butler]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The problem is that we do not know, and that is the reason to introduce prevalence testing. We know about individual cases where people have died, unfortunately, but we do not know the number of people who have taken drugs but it has not been detected. That is the whole purpose of introducing the Bill. If it passes and the measures are implemented, we will, in 12, 24 or 36 months, have a much clearer idea of the prevalence, but I would not want to hazard a guess on something that we do not yet know. My hon. Friend almost underlines the rationale for my Bill.

Keyham Shootings

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is quite right, and if she will give me a moment, I will outline the part that the Government will play in helping Keyham to grieve and to recover. I have been reassured in our conversations that immediate support is available for victims, witnesses and survivors, and that such support must be sustainable in the long term. I know that the office of the police and crime commissioner, Victim Support, Plymouth City Council and its local partners have done outstanding work in supporting those impacted by this incident, and drawing in support from across the entire city. I express my gratitude for their proactive and constructive approach, as well as that of the police and crime commissioner Alison Hernandez. I also echo the tributes paid by the hon. Gentleman to the emergency service personnel who played such a critical part on the day in their response, and who continue to do so on a daily basis.

Although it is right that the response is led by the local community, it is also right that central Government support those efforts and ensure that victims get the help they need. Later this year the Government will introduce a landmark victims Bill, to enshrine the rights of victims in law, ensuring that victims are better supported to recover and have confidence in the criminal justice system, and that more offenders are brought to justice. To ensure that victims receive the rights and support they are entitled to, we published a revised victims code in April to make it a clearer and comprehensive framework centred on 12 key rights for victims.

When these awful crimes happen, the nationally commissioned homicide service is there to offer support to families bereaved by murder and manslaughter, to support them to cope and, as far as possible, recover. The service covers a range of practical and emotional support, and in Keyham it will be there for as long as it is needed by the families who have been impacted by this awful event. The 24/7 support line, live chat and My Support Space services have been available to anyone seeking support, while locally commissioned support services have had staff and volunteers placed in the community, directly delivering support and providing a reassuring presence.

Thankfully, shootings of this nature are very rare in the UK, but when such horrific tragedies happen, they have a profound and devastating impact on those affected, the local community and our society as a whole. We have not come here today to debate the cause of the crimes, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said, but it is important for me to put it on the record that protecting the public is our No. 1 priority, and we are supporting the police with more powers, resources and officers to carry out their critical work now and in the future.

No one should ever have to live in fear of crime. Following this incident, I know, because the hon. Gentleman has highlighted it today and previously to me, that that is a real concern for everybody in that part of Plymouth. In the wake of such a terrible tragedy, we are fully committed to helping the local community, and I can inform the House that we have allocated over £1 million in additional Government funding to support the recovery effort in Keyham. Over £800,000 will be invested in community safety and policing to help rebuild confidence and reassure the public that Keyham is a safe place to live, work and go to school. Part of the recovery is also ensuring that there are adequate support services available for the victims and witnesses of these attacks. Almost £300,000 will be made available to the Devon, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly police and crime commissioner to commission additional support services as required.

As we have heard movingly this evening, one very important issue is the number of children and young people who sadly witnessed the events that took place last month. I echo the hon. Gentleman’s thanks to the local schools in the area, which opened to the community to facilitate immediate support. He has asked for support for the local schools in Plymouth. I am pleased to say that educational psychologists have been made available to the schools in the vicinity to support children and young people to deal with the trauma they may have witnessed. We know that organisations such as Young Devon and Jeremiah’s Journey have been providing important practical and emotional support to those young people who have requested it.

As a result of the funding I have announced today, specific further caseworker support will be made available for children and young people who witnessed these horrific events. We know how important practical and emotional support are for victims and witnesses of crime, and it is for that reason that I have agreed to make funding available not only for caseworkers but for specialist emotional support, including trauma and counselling provision for those who witnessed these horrendous acts of violence, including children and young people.

I know that the hon. Gentleman has been in discussions with the former Minister for schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), about additional support that may be available. Officials at the Department for Education have been in close contact with the council on this matter and continue to work in collaboration to understand the recovery needs.

I am sure that we all commend the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for his honesty this evening in sharing the personal impact that this incident has had on him. I am sure that Members across the House will agree with him that asking for help is no sign of weakness. That is why an additional 130 spaces have been made available in local mental health services through the increasing access to psychological therapies programme.

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is also sighted on the request for cross-Government support submitted by the city council following the tragic events. It will continue to work with the council, and with other Departments with an interest, to contribute, where possible, to the further recovery efforts in Keyham in the longer term. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and other Members that this issue remains a priority for the Government, and I hope that my colleagues will be able to say more about the available support in due course.

I thank the hon. Gentleman again for securing this debate and for his constructive and positive engagement with me and my ministerial colleagues. I hope that I have been able to reassure him and the rest of the House about how seriously we take our responsibility to those directly affected by this tragedy and to the local community more widely. Let me say once again that my thoughts are with the loved ones of the victims whose lives were lost in this appalling incident, and with the wider community who witnessed this dreadful act. As the hon. Gentleman said, Plymouth will recover, but a process of grieving and mourning must be gone through first. We will be standing alongside all those organisations and individuals who have contributed to the remarkable collective community effort in the aftermath of this horrific shooting, to make sure that Plymouth has a brighter future.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I would like to thank you too, Luke, for bringing this issue before the House of Commons in the way that you have. I wish you and your community well in the coming months and the years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Protecting the Public and Justice for Victims

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]]

The Government have been taking strong action to tackle violence against women and girls by delivering our landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, legislating to protect women and girls from serious violent and sexual offenders and ensuring they spend longer behind bars, legislating to ban upskirting, and delivering additional support for victims during the pandemic, ensuring that organisations and victims have everything they need. I am proud of the strong measures this Conservative Government have taken to improve our criminal justice system, but today I want to concentrate on the appalling decision made by the independent Parole Board to release Colin Pitchfork.

Pitchfork brutally raped and callously murdered two innocent teenage girls in my constituency 30 years ago. The young lives of Dawn Ashworth and Lynda Mann were horrifically cut short in the most violent of ways. There cannot be any worse sexual offences committed against women than raping and murdering them. The horrific nature of those crimes has left a lasting and deep impression on the collective memory of my constituents, particularly those living in Enderby and Narborough where these brutal crimes took place. The families and friends of Dawn and Lynda continue to endure endless pain and nightmare memories.

The Lord Chancellor will recall that I campaigned and lobbied his predecessor very hard in spring 2018, at the time when Pitchfork was due to have his first parole hearing. At about that time the Parole Board made another awful decision involving John Worboys, which caused outrage across our country. The victims of Worboys were rightly disgusted with the independent Parole Board’s decision. There was a widespread belief that the Parole Board had completely failed to safeguard women’s safety and had acted manifestly irrationally in choosing to release Worboys. The flawed decision by the Parole Board to release John Worboys eventually led to a new reconsideration mechanism; the rules were presented to the House as the then Government’s response to avoid another Worboys-type situation.

The independent Parole Board’s decision on Monday to release double child rapist and killer Pitchfork has caused widespread alarm; I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) for referring to the Pitchfork decision a few moments ago. The new Parole Board rules have very infrequently been considered, and in some respects the Pitchfork decision is a real test of the efficacy of the reconsideration mechanism rules.

There is a strong and compelling argument that the Lord Chancellor does not need to apply the same stringent judicial review grounds in law. He is acting as an applicant, not as an adjudicator. The decision for him to take is whether to refer the matter back to the Parole Board for it to reconsider, not for him to decide the issue in its place. I end with a plea to my right hon. and learned Friend to exercise a discretion that this House gave his office for cases of this sensitive nature, and not to allow the high threshold for judicial review to obfuscate his ability to refer the case back to the Parole Board for reconsideration.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Laura Farris will be the last speaker on four minutes. We will then go down to three minutes, to get as many people in as we possibly can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Farris]

I think I understand the hon. Lady’s implication. Of course I am not suggesting that the backlog is dealt with, but the critical point is the progress that we are making through the backlog rather than the number itself. It is right to say that disposals now outstrip receipts and we are reducing numbers, which is something that I think we should be very proud of.

I also think that there is real cause for optimism in how remote hearings have been used. From a standing start, we saw courts embracing nascent technology, and in 12 months they have delivered everything from a 12-week trial in the High Court to a complex jury inquest in Kent, all of it online. These changes are becoming embedded. In the future, we will be delivering justice in a way that is more efficient, more economical and crucially, I hope, more swift.

I would like to spend a moment on the issue of justice for women. I echo the remarks of the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), in that I think we do women a disservice if we reduce these questions to a political tit-for-tat, although I think the mood has shifted a little bit since the start of this debate. There are Opposition Members for whom I have a lot of respect on this issue, and they know that.

The Government have made good progress. Stalking, choking, revenge porn and rough sex are ugly crimes that have found their way on to the statute book, where they did not previously exist. Of course, we are not there yet, and it is a raw feeling to be speaking on this in the week when Wayne Couzens admitted to the abduction and rape of Sarah Everard, but that crime did not happen because of an absence of laws. In fact, Harriet Wistrich from the Centre for Women’s Justice gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee this morning, where she said that the fact is we do not need more legislation. Her concern, which she expressed powerfully, is that the police are failing to implement what is already there. Very respectfully, when I read the Labour Green Paper, I saw almost no reference to police failings at all.

I also think that we as a House have to be honest. While young people can pick up a phone, click a few buttons and watch rape porn, we have a problem. While schools and universities, and even workplaces, tolerate or at least turn a blind eye to misogyny and harassment in their midst, we have a problem. When young people are living in families where they see perhaps violence and misogyny exhibited in the home, we have a problem. The justice system is the end point, but if we are serious about violence against women and girls, we owe it to the victims to work seriously and collaboratively on the causes.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There is now a three-minute limit. I remind everybody—I do not know what has been said before from the Chair—that if anything is before the courts and is sub judice, please do not make reference to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

Over the past year we have faced an unprecedented crisis—in our health service, in our economy and, yes, in our justice system, too. Unfortunately, a period of national crisis is not enough to deter criminals and, worse, many have sought to take advantage of those made even more vulnerable by the circumstances. As people stayed at home, the number of domestic abuse cases went up sharply over the course of the past year.

I commend the work of organisations like Eva Women’s Aid and Foundation in Redcar for their work to support victims of domestic abuse during this time. Home simply is not the safe place it is supposed to be for everyone, but the new Domestic Abuse Act 2021 will better protect victims while perpetrators will not only be brought to justice more quickly, but also with the prospect of being locked up for longer. There is more to do, and I thank the Government for listening to the voice of women and girls and extending the recent call for evidence.

I also congratulate the new Conservative police and crime commissioner for Cleveland, Steve Turner, who is holding a separate survey for women and girls in Teesside to respond to, so that we can use that evidence to get the right funding and resources to help women feel safe in Teesside. So far, more than 750 women have responded, which shows the strength of feeling and the worrying experiences that women and girls in Teesside face every day.

Sadly, knife crime claims all too many lives. I feel particularly sorry for the people of London, who were let down by a Mayor who clearly cannot get a grip of this issue. Knife crime is, of course, not limited to the capital; it happens every day, and Ministry of Justice figures show that Teesside is one of the most dangerous places for knives and offensive weapons in the country, highlighting our need for a violence reduction unit in Teesside. I pay tribute to the incredible work of organisations like the Chris Cave Foundation to deter young people from carrying offensive weapons of any kind. The organisation was set up by Theresa Cave after her son was killed in a knife crime attack 18 years ago; the anniversary of his death is on Saturday. She thinks the justice system is still far too lenient when it comes to serious crime, or, in her own words,

“The police do their job but there are far too many getting a slap on the wrist when caught with weapons. The courts need to take a far more serious view on this to make potential offenders think twice before”

picking up an offensive weapon. This must be our charge: to hear what victims are saying and ensure that our justice system does deliver when people need it; that young people are protected from harm; and that women and girls, and indeed everyone, is kept safe from dangerous criminals and abusers. I commend the Government for their work and thank them for what they are doing in this regard.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We have had a couple of withdrawals, so after Catherine West will be Andy Carter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]]

The justice system is failing endemically to live up to its name. As of last month, there were half a million cases outstanding in the magistrates and Crown courts, and some trials are now being listed for 2022. Victims, witnesses and defendants are facing years of waiting with procedures hanging over them. This is a crisis of justice. Even before the pandemic, Tory austerity cuts had brought the justice system to its knees, with the Ministry of Justice losing a quarter of its budget over the last 10 years. Resulting reductions in legal aid and the increase in court and tribunal fees have increasingly made justice a privilege of those who can afford it, leaving those who cannot with immense and, too often, insurmountable barriers. This has left the scales of justice weighed against ordinary people.

This sorry state of affairs was made crystal clear in the recent collapse of the Hillsborough trial, described as a “mockery” and a “shambles” by family members of the 96, who had fought tirelessly for justice. Will the Minister today go some way towards rebalancing the scales and commit to bringing forward the Hillsborough law, which would place a duty of candour on all public officials and require parity of legal funding for bereaved families and public bodies?

The pursuit of justice stretches beyond the courts, as well the Minister knows. It necessarily includes the ability of people to hold public authorities to account. However, the draconian measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill severely threaten our ability to do just that. By making it an offence to cause “serious annoyance” or “inconvenience”, this Bill restricts our fundamental rights to freedom of assembly and expression, and effectively removes our collective ability to fight back against state abuses of power. The Black Lives Matter protests last year and more recent demonstrations in response to the murder of Sarah Everard shone a new spotlight on a pattern of violent crackdown by police on peaceful protesters that stretches back to miners protesting at Orgreave and elsewhere in the 1980s and beyond.

I ask the Minister: what does this Bill do to make our communities safer or bring justice closer to those families? Some of the most disturbing clauses attack the nomadic lives of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. In Liverpool, we have a large, eminent settlement of GRT families living in Kirkdale, who face systemic discrimination as well as routine violence. These new proposals are discriminatory and potentially unlawful, and threaten increased persecution of these communities. The Government’s own consultation on extending these powers shows that even the majority of police respondents think that the crackdown is the wrong approach.

The fact that the Government have spent so much time and resource curtailing people’s basic democratic rights and freedoms to hold them to account, rather than focusing on overhauling our creaking and hollowed-out justice system, speaks volumes about their priorities. I call on them today to reject the authoritarian Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and invest significant resources in balancing the legal system—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sorry, Kim, but we are on a three-minute limit. We let you go on a bit after, don’t worry.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 2
Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

Question (15 March) again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before we resume the debate, I want to remind the House of what was said yesterday regarding the Sarah Everard case. Charges have now been brought in that case. The sub judice resolution does not apply formally when the House is legislating. However, I would urge all Members to exercise caution and not say anything about the detail of the case or of the identity of those against whom charges have been brought that might affect any subsequent court case.

I have decided to select the reasoned amendment in the name of the Official Opposition and I will call David Lammy to move their reasoned amendment when he comes to speak later in the debate.

I remind all hon. Members, whether they are participating remotely or otherwise, that there is a three-minute limit on all contributions. For those participating remotely, there is a timer on the bottom righthand corner of the device that you are utilising. If, for whatever reason, you cannot see that, please ensure that you have another timing device because we have to be very strict. Not everyone will get in today, quite clearly, so please do not push the limit beyond three minutes. For those participating physically, the timer will be demonstrated in the usual manner.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) [V]]

How often have we heard the notion that somehow liberty is an integral part of the English character, and that we fortunate few in this country are somehow different from the rest of humanity? Not for us authoritarianism, autocracy or, God forbid, the dark slide into fascism. No, no, no—that is for other people and other countries, not us. Yet here we stand, yet again with yet another Bill from this Government stripping the people of this country of yet more liberty and more of their democratic rights.

English exceptionalism is a dangerous fallacy, none more so than when it comes to the constant vigilance required of any democracy. It is hubris of the first order—one I fear has infected those on the Government Benches. The potential for the slide into authoritarianism and worse is, as history has clearly demonstrated, part of the human condition. That is the painful and bloody lesson from the 20th century. Yet here we are, with this Bill before us. It is the tip of an authoritarian iceberg—one that is on a collision course with public defiance.

Democracy is being swept away in a calculated programme to leave the public muted and powerless. We have the demonisation of the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma community, a planned voter suppression Bill to strip the right to vote from black and other disadvantaged communities, and the limiting of judicial review to stop the public challenging the Government’s decisions in court and shifting yet more power to the Executive. We have the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which creates a two-tier, “them and us” system of human rights. Now, having passed that, the Government are coming for our rights with a review of UK human rights legislation.

Those on the Government Benches are fast moving from becoming a Government to becoming a regime. They want to stifle dissent, so that they are not accountable to the public. Our country—our economy, our politics and our media—is controlled by a small clique of individuals. Over the past 40 years, they have taken more power for themselves at the expense of our democracy. Now they are not even happy with us clinging on to the scraps we currently have.

I have directed this speech at Government Members, but to those on my own Front Bench who have finally been brought to the right position of opposition, I say this: it should not have taken the police assault on people gathered peacefully in memory of Sarah Everard to see the assault on democracy that this Bill is. It is writ large, so let this be a wake-up call. We have never seen anything like this Government before.

If the Bill goes through, anyone who values their democratic rights must get organised and fight back. I will stand with protesters, irrelevant of the laws passed by this place. I say to anyone in this place and outside who values democracy that we must create a democracy that is fit for purpose for the challenges we face—climate and ecological breakdown, the epidemic of inequality—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We are moving on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) [V]]

I join others across the House in extending my sincere condolences to the family and friends and all affected by the horrific murder of Sarah Everard last week.

The House has heard many passionate speeches objecting to certain aspects of the Bill that impose disproportionate restrictions on our freedom of expression and right to protest. Those are fundamental human rights and a cornerstone of our democracy, and they must be protected. I totally support those objections to the restriction of our liberties. The right to peacefully protest on any issue must not be interfered with by the Government.

Part 2, chapter 1 of the Bill deals with duties to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence. Specifically, it places a legal duty on local authorities, police, criminal justice agencies, health authorities, fire and rescue services and others to collaborate through sharing data and intelligence with one another to prevent and reduce serious violence and a duty to plan together to prevent and reduce such violence. In particular, they must identify the kinds of serious violence that occur, identify the causes of that violence and prepare and implement a strategy to prevent and reduce violence. Without any doubt, it is imperative that the impact of violence by men against women, the prevalence of that violence—particularly domestic violence and sexual violence—controlling and coercive behaviour by men and the impact on the community are included in that strategy to reduce violence against women and girls.

I want to highlight the outstanding work of the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit, funded by the Scottish Government. It has reduced homicides in Scotland from 137 over a number of years to 64 last year, using an innovative, proactive public health partnership approach to violence reduction, driven by the conviction that violence is preventable and not inevitable. A number of police services across England and Wales have sought advice from the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit and are at varying stages of setting up similar schemes.

It is therefore very welcome that the Bill will pave the way for the police service and other agencies to adopt schemes and strategies based on that model, which has proven to be highly successful. That approach must be included in the formal strategy mentioned by the Home Secretary yesterday for the reduction of all forms of violence by men against women and girls. This will, of course, come at a significant cost, but whatever that cost is, we simply cannot afford not to take this action, as by not doing so, we will continue to fail to protect women and girls now and in the future. We must act, and we must act now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The clock has not been started, because I did not want to eat into your time, Tracey, but I want to say that it is fantastic to see you back in the House of Commons where you belong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

This monster of a Bill includes the word “women” zero times in 295 pages, yet statutes, war memorials and monuments are mentioned multiple times.

The Bill is likely to go into Committee, so it is then that I will seek to improve it by tabling an amendment to prohibit the long-standing and continual, daily harassment and intimidation of women at abortion facilities. Every year, 100,000 women across England and Wales who try to exercise their right to a termination are told that they are going to hell, filmed, followed and given propaganda that is inevitably medically wrong and unwanted. That is not healthy, noisy protest but the shaming of individual vulnerable women for decisions taken perhaps as a result of rape or similar. It is gendered harassment, which is not included in the Bill but overlaps with part 3—the explanatory notes talk about

“disruption to the life of the community”

when

“the purpose of the organiser is to intimidate others into doing or not doing something that they have a right to do”.

Many women will have recognised what the Home Secretary said yesterday about how we all too often quicken our pace or grab our keys or phone in uncomfortable street encounters. Factor in being booked for a time-sensitive medical operation and there is no easy escape. This intimidatory activity is calculated to make women cancel their appointment or, at the very best, rebook it for when those people are not there. There is unpredictability and inconsistency: only three local authorities have gone down the byelaw route of local public space protection orders. This cannot continue; it is unequal access to justice, if nothing else.

When I asked the Health Secretary in this Chamber for his opinion on anti-vaxxers, he told me that no one’s access to legal medicine should be barred or prevented. By lumping such a measure in with prosecuting sports coaches who groom teams, criminalising already-persecuted Traveller lifestyles and introducing excessive sentences for toppling statues, the Government are inevitably going to accuse those who oppose the Bill of being soft on sex offenders, which is really disappointing.

Harassment of women is objectively wrong; it is surely not party political. Indeed, the cross-party will of the House is behind such a measure. The last time my private Member’s Bill was put to a vote in June, the House voted for it by 213 to 47. I even had Government Members on the payroll coming up to me all day saying, “Good on you, I wish we could have voted for this too.” So it is high time we updated what is being done in common law and put into statute, followed Canada—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am terribly sorry; we have to move on.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]]

Given the recent focus on violence against women and the fact that the coronavirus pandemic has increased physical and sexual violence, the Bill represents an opportunity to fix oversights in the law regarding child safeguarding. It contains some welcome provisions that will protect women in the UK. However, child marriage remains an oversight, and a new clause criminalising the practice would protect vulnerable girls in this country and around the world.

Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, adults commit a criminal offence if they have sex with a child—defined as a person under the age of 18—with whom they are in a position of trust. Clause 45 of this Bill would extend the list of positions of trust to include sports coaches and religious figures, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). The explanatory notes state that the logic is that children are susceptible to abuse, exploitation and manipulation. If a child’s will can so easily be manipulated by those in a position of trust, with abusive consequences, why does the law allowed them to marry at the age of 16 or 17 with their parents’ consent?

In 2018, the Forced Marriage Unit recorded 1,500 cases of suspected forced marriage, 35% of which involved children under the age of 18, and since 2017, Karma Nirvana has responded to 375 calls involving child marriage. However, the true prevalence of child marriage is likely to be much greater as it often occurs in unofficial customary ceremonies. The crime of forced marriage, introduced in 2014, does not adequately protect children. The Forced Marriage Unit reports feeling unable to intervene in cases involving children because coercion is difficult to prove and vulnerable children have been groomed to appear willing. Children being groomed into child marriages often cannot understand what is happening to them and feel unable to challenge their parents. The current law effectively places the reporting obligation of a serious crime on young and vulnerable victims. For that reason, many contact charities such as Karma Nirvana only later in life when the damage has been done, so could Ministers please include a new clause in the Bill to enable us to stop child marriage in this country?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I should just like to remind those who are on the call list but who, for whatever reason, are unable to take part in the debate, please to get in touch with the Speaker’s Office as usual. That message will then get through to us. The sooner the better, please.

Sexual Offences Act 2003: Positions of Trust

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]]

It is a huge honour to be here, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for granting this debate about closing the loophole in the law to protect 16 and 17-year-olds from sexual exploitation.

I have been campaigning on this vital issue for years, but I wish we did not have to be here again. The only reason we are here is that the Government have failed time and again to listen to me, to other MPs, to peers, to charities—especially the NSPCC and Thirtyone:eight—and to victims and survivors of sexual exploitation. The Government have failed time and again to close a loophole in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that leaves 16 and 17-year-olds open to sexual abuse. Currently, section 22 of the Act describes a person in a position of trust if they are

“regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge”

of a child. Someone in a position of trust who then has sex with a 16 or 17-year-old in their care is acting unlawfully.

However, this sensible legislation only applies to adults working in a set of professions listed in section 21 of the Act, including teachers, care workers and youth justice staff. This loophole allows adults such as faith leaders or sports coaches—who clearly meet the criteria in section 22, but are not on the list of public sector professions—to be above the law, and therefore to engage in sexual activity with 16 and 17-year-olds in their care with impunity. Given the Government’s claim to be sending out what the Home Secretary’s foreword to her recent “Tackling Child Sexual Abuse strategy” describes as

“a clear message to those who abuse our children”,

I fail to understand why, after years of persistent campaigning by Members across the House, action to protect children from being sexually exploited by adults in positions of trust has not been taken. In the same strategy, the Home Secretary goes on to state that

“if you think you can…abuse positions of trust—think again, you will pay for your crimes”,

but that is not true. Government inaction means that there remain a whole host of adults in positions of trust, from sports coaches to those in faith organisations, who are not covered by the law and who will simply say that the 16 or 17-year-old consented to a sexual relationship with them as their defence. That is if the abuse is ever discovered. The current legislation makes it the child’s responsibility to identify, report and be the witness in court to the abuse. This is totally unrealistic and unjust.

Closing the current loophole would simply make the act of sex with a child in your care a crime. Does the Minister really think that a maths teacher has more influence over a child than their sports coach? The child will see that sports coach every day, and the coach will have the power to make their dreams come true or dash them. Currently, the law does think that the maths teacher has more influence. I was pleased that, in 2019, the Ministry of Justice finally conducted an internal review into the law. Then, in March 2020, after being in post for only a few short weeks, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) stated that it was

“crystal clear…that this is an extremely important issue which requires a clear, considered and decisive response.”

The Minister went on to say that

“we should urgently consider all options, including legislative change, and must be in a position to announce next steps by the end of May.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2020; Vol. 672, c. 303WH.]

That was in March 2020, but as I am here again today, it goes without saying that no announcement was forthcoming. So I ask the Minister, given his May deadline, when exactly the Government will be able to announce the next steps to protect children.

In February 2003, Baroness Blatch highlighted the loophole and called for it to be addressed. The Baroness was the first to raise this concern, but she certainly was not the last. I would like to pay tribute to all those who, over the years, have urged the Government to close this loophole. In particular, I want to recognise the work of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and that of Tanni Grey-Thompson in the other place, both of whom have worked tirelessly to draw attention to predatory sports coaches abusing children in their care.

The Minister is aware that I have previously carried out an inquiry on this topic in my former role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on safeguarding in faith settings. The APPG published its report in 2019. It highlighted that adults holding positions within faith organisations

“will automatically be seen as having authority, power and influence.”

There is a power imbalance, and when combined with the close, regular and intense contact between faith leaders and young people, this creates significant opportunities for grooming and abuse. Young people and their families place significant trust in these leaders, and there is a failure to question potential abusive behaviour or poor safeguarding standards. Many young people and parents assume that legislation prevents faith leaders and workers from engaging in sexual activity with children under their care.

That is the nub of it. If someone leaves their child in the care of a professional, even if the child is over the age of consent, it is completely logical to assume that the law would apply if that professional failed in their duty to safeguard. Sadly, because of Government inaction, parents are making the wrong assumption. The law does not prevent faith leaders, sports coaches, driving instructors, tutors or even police officers from engaging in sexual activity with a 16 or 17-year-old under their supervision. It is important to add that many children will have been groomed by the professional prior to their turning 16, and they will actually believe that they are in a relationship with their abuser.

Let us take the example of Hannah—not her real name—who featured in the NSPCC “Close the loophole” campaign. Hannah swam from a young age and took her training seriously. She admired her coach, Jeff, and would work hard to be given praise by him. When she was 15, Hannah was having a difficult time, and Jeff built up her trust by supporting her. After Hannah turned 16, Jeff started to compliment her, saying she looked nice, or that her clothes looked nice on her. He said she looked beautiful and attractive. Hannah says that she had not heard a man say those kinds of things to her before, and she was unsure how she felt about it, but things progressed to the point where they started having sex. The relationship lasted over a year before a disclosure revealed what had happened. The police questioned Jeff, but no charges were brought, due to Hannah being over 16 and therefore able to consent to sex.  

A Freedom of Information request commissioned by the NSPCC found that between 2014 and 2018, there was a total of 653 recorded cases in which adults in a position of trust had had a sexual relationship with a child of 16 or 17 in their care. What really horrifies me is that those numbers will be just the tip of the iceberg.  As the law stands, it is the child’s word against their abuser—if the offence is ever uncovered— which means that the vast majority of cases will never see the light of day, let alone be investigated or recorded. That is just as the abuser intended. 

The all-party parliamentary group on safeguarding in faith settings, the NSPCC, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, Thirtyone:eight, the Church of England, Sport England, West Midlands police, the Offside Trust, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and even the Home Secretary are all calling on the Government to close this loophole to protect children. What more will it take for the Minister to act?  

Protecting children and young people from harm should be one of society’s top priorities.  It is really is quite simple. The law needs to change so that all adults who hold a position of trust over a child, even if that child is 16 or 17, must be banned from having sex with them.  Over the years of campaigning on this, I have heard the same justifications for doing nothing from a host of different Ministers. 

I suspect that tonight the Minister will highlight that the law around positions of trust offences is complex, and that any reforms should not unduly impinge upon the sexual rights and freedoms of those who are over 16. The Minister may say that a broad new definition of positions of trust could result in the age of consent being raised by stealth.  I appreciate and understand the complexities here, and of course the unintended consequences must be considered.  

I am not here to argue for denying young people age-appropriate rights to agency and self-determination, but we cannot abandon our duty to protect children from abuse when it is clearly happening. Children and young people across the country will soon be returning to school and many will again participate in vital extracurricular activity after an incredibly difficult year.  The Minister has the ability to protect those children from abuse. He has already acknowledged the urgency and pressing nature of this problem, so will he confirm tonight that the Government will once and for all close the loophole in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and make sure that 16 and 17-year-olds are protected from all predatory professionals in a position of trust over them? Minister, I await your answer.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you, Sarah Champion. The Dispatch Box was sanitised while we were off screen.

Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

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

[Lucy Frazer]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend mentions that. I was just about to say that, as he may be aware, there is a pilot drug recovery prison at HMP Holme House, which helps prisoners improve their chance of recovery, so we are testing a dedicated prison to try to improve the issue of drugs. It has been in operation for a short period, and the evaluation of the pilot is due shortly. We are not just focused on one drug recovery prison, though; we have enhanced units or wings at many of our prisons, and we would like to expand them in due course.

The hon. Member for West Ham asked whether it might be better to spend money on more staff, better access to drug treatment and through-the-gate services. In addition to the money that I have identified, we are already spending money on all those things. She will know that, since 2016, we have had a net increase in our prison officer numbers by more than 4,000. Notwithstanding the pandemic, we are continuing to recruit into our prison service, and we are doing so at a good rate. We recently increased the moneys to our community rehabilitation companies for through-the-gate services by something in the region of £22 million.

The hon. Lady also identified the fantastic work that prison officers have been doing throughout the covid pandemic. Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to their ongoing work in very challenging circumstances over the past few months. She is right to identify the importance of continued programmes. We are looking at how we can maintain safety and security during the pandemic so that we do not have too many prisoners meeting other prisoners and therefore seeding and feeding the infection. At the same time, we are continuing with individual work.

A number of hon. Members referred to prisons in their areas. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), I pay tribute to the work that is being done at Berwyn. I had the opportunity to speak to the governor of Berwyn recently; he has done a remarkable job through the covid period. I also pay tribute to the work at HMP Bure, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) referred to.

Hon. Members made a number of points about the importance of this legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), who always speaks with such knowledge on these issues, said that it could be profoundly beneficial. My hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) and for Wantage (David Johnston) both said that this legislation will give people a further chance of turning around their lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) said that it may help make prisons safer. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said that the Bill is not just good but necessary. For all those reasons, I confirm with great pleasure that the Government support this important Bill, and I look forward to its passage through this House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Richard Holden, I want to say that Dame Cheryl Gillan has been in touch. She has watched the debate throughout, and she wants everybody to know that she is grateful for all the support that she has had today. On behalf of the House, let me say that we look forward to you coming back as soon as possible, Dame Cheryl. We miss you.

Child Cruelty Offences: Sentencing

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2020 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rebecca Harris.)

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If Tom Tugendhat can get a seat, I can call him. Will Members leaving the Chamber do so carefully, observing social distancing? Please have a good weekend. I call Mr Tom Tugendhat.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) for securing this important debate. I am conscious that I have only a few minutes to do justice to a very important subject, so I would like to offer him the opportunity to discuss the matter further with me or another Minister in the Department.

This story is horrific and tragic. No child should suffer what Tony sustained at the hands of his biological parents. Like my hon. Friend, as a parent I cannot begin to imagine the pain inflicted on Tony, and the physical and emotional impact that it has had on his life. I pay credit to the work that his parents, Paula and Mark, have done in campaigning on this issue. I know that they have worked hard, along with my hon. Friend, to draw this matter to the attention of the authorities in a number of ways.

The offences of child cruelty under which Tony’s parents were sentenced are not the only penalties available in such a case. A person can also be prosecuted for number of other offences—for example, an offender can be prosecuted for GBH or attempted murder, and both those offences carry the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Additionally, if the victim of a serious assault is a child, that is clearly an aggravating factor and likely to lead to an increase in any sentence. It follows that the law and penalties for the most serious cases are the same for children as for adults. Indeed, sentences imposed for offences against children can often be higher.

Since my hon. Friend first brought this matter to our attention, my officials have been looking at sentences for child cruelty, and kept them under review. Statistics show that there is currently no pressure on the maximum penalty for the offence of child cruelty because, as my hon. Friend pointed out, fortunately there are not many of these cases—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords]

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Justice Committee. I found much with which to agree in what he said and I share his regret that the Bill is necessary.

I start, however, by recognising that the Bill is necessary as a result of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, and I wish to make it clear that the Scottish National party supports the swift implementation of the 1996, 2005 and 2007 Hague conventions, because that will allow vital family law co-operation measures to continue after the transition period. My party is all for close and co-operative judicial relationships and we hope that, despite some worrying signs to the contrary, the United Kingdom will work with the European Union to ensure such relationships during and beyond the transition period.

However, my party’s support for the Bill does not change the fact that the Scottish National party, along with the majority of people living in Scotland, deeply regrets the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on 31 January 2020. That happened without the consent of the people of Scotland and against the explicit wishes of our Parliament. In the EU referendum, which seems an awfully long time ago now, Scotland voted by a significant majority to remain in the European Union, and majority support for EU membership remains constant in opinion polls in Scotland. Indeed, at every electoral opportunity since the 2016 referendum, voters in Scotland have given my party and the other pro-EU parties a resounding majority. I know these facts may be unpalatable to some on the Government Benches but they are facts, and ignoring these facts—ignoring the repeatedly expressed democratic wishes of people in Scotland—has consequences. These consequences are plain to be seen in the fact that, even in the absence of a campaign, support for Scottish independence has reached 55% in the opinion polls during the current crisis. Brexit is widely recognised as a significant factor in the rise of that support, which is now at unprecedented levels.

The Government and those on their Back Benches would do well to listen to wise voices, such as that of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who last night told “Newsnight” that

“Brexit has made the case for the Union more difficult to push in Scotland”

and that it would be

“very difficult to resist”

a second independence referendum.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I understand the point that the hon. and learned Lady is making, but is there any chance that she could now get to the Bill in front of us?

[Joanna Cherry]

I was about to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think it is important for the record that we restate the view, and make it crystal clear—as my constituents, and those who elected my fellow SNP Members, would wish us to do—that we are agreeing to the Bill only because we see it as inevitable to protect constituents and businesses in Scotland; but that we do not agree to the fact of Brexit, and that that has consequences, which I am sure are relevant to all discussions in this Parliament going forward—at least from the point of view of Scottish Members of Parliament.

Returning to the specific terms of the Bill, we accept the need to make preparations for the circumstances that will arise as a result of the end of the transition period. As others have said, although international private law is rather dry—as a student, I regarded it with dread—nevertheless it is really important to our constituents, and particularly important in the field of family law, but also really important for commerce and business.

As an aside, I was pleased to see that during the Bill’s passage through the Lords, the UK Government registered their intent to ratify and implement the 2000 Hague convention on the international protection of adults. That has already been done in Scotland, but I am pleased to see that it will now happen in England and Wales, and that there will be an appropriate consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive.

Although the Bill’s introduction has been triggered by the UK leaving the EU, there are aspects of it that go beyond Brexit. I think the Bill—certainly clause 2—was very much about the future strategy for international relations in the area of private international law, about which the Lord Chancellor spoke. I very much hope that for so long as Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom and, indeed, afterwards, when it becomes an independent nation, the strategy of the Government will be based on a commitment to international co-operation on private international law, including multinational agreements, and not just limited to the European Union. As others have said, these agreements are important because they allow and support the legal services sector in the United Kingdom, including in the separate jurisdiction of Scotland, to participate in private international law developments internationally. The commitment to international co-operation on international private law is in line with my party’s policy. We would like to see more international co-operation, not less, and that is certainly the strategy that an independent Scotland will pursue in the years to come.

I welcome the fact that this Bill was drafted to recognise that Scotland is a separate legal jurisdiction and to make provision accordingly. The Lord Chancellor knows that, in another area, I have had occasion to write to him recently to remind him of the fact that the Scottish system of civil justice is indeed completely independent from that of England. That is not just because of devolution, which, of course, is a fairly modern event. It is important to understand that the civil justice system under the Scotland Act 1998 is the preserve of the Scottish Parliament, but that separateness is also guaranteed by the Treaty of Union—in particular by article 19 of the Treaty of Union.

Although I am afraid, as the Lord Chancellor knows, that in the field of judicial review there may be a threat of an excursion into Scottish territory, I am very pleased to see that, in this Bill, that is not the case. None the less, it is worth reminding ourselves that it has often been said that some parts of the Treaty of Union, such as the preservation of Scotland’s Church and also Scotland’s legal system, are so fundamental that this Parliament does not have the power to legislate in contravention of them. I am aware that that point has never been definitively tested in a court of law, but were there to be an excursion into Scots law in the field of judicial review, that might be the opportunity to test that question, and I think the outcome of any such litigation could have interesting knock-on effects. However, as I say, it is not a bridge that we need to cross in relation to this Bill. I see the Lord Chancellor shaking his head with something approaching belief and I am sure that he will be aware that any interference in Scotland’s independent legal system would be met with some resistance, not just from adherence to the cause of Scottish independence, but from the Scottish legal profession. The two things are not always the same thing, although they are increasingly becoming the same thing.

I do not mean to jest here because I am grateful to the Government for having drafted this Bill in a way that recognises that, under section 126(4)(a) of the Scotland Act, private international law is part of Scots private law and that includes matters such as choice of law that this Bill covers, choice of jurisdiction, recognition of judgments and enforcement of decisions. There is also the convention under section 28(8) of the Scotland Act—the Sewel convention—that this Parliament would normally legislate with regard to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. I know that that has been breached on a number of occasions recently, but thankfully not in a relation to this Bill. Under the original clause 2 of this Bill, Scottish Ministers were given certain powers in relation to delegated legislation because, whereas negotiating and joining international agreements on private international law is reserved, implementing them in domestic law is devolved. As the Lord Chancellor will be aware, the Scottish Government have considered carefully the provisions of the Bill as originally laid insofar as they legislated for Scotland and legislative consent was sought from the Scottish Parliament and granted on 17 June. That was very much because the view was taken that, because the provisions of the Bill cover Scotland as a separate jurisdiction, Scotland would be placed in a prejudicial position if allowance was not made, and that would adversely impact on Scottish citizens and businesses. I think it is fair to say that my colleagues in the Scottish Government wanted to provide reassurance to those affected by cross-border family support and custody mechanisms, as other Members have adverted to.

Finally, I come to the removal of clause 2 in the other place. I appreciate that if clause 2 is not reinserted into the Bill, it will mean that for each private international law agreement the UK enters into in future, primary legislation will be required to implement it domestically. A lack of clause 2 would not mean that the UK did not have the ability to enter into these agreements, but it would mean that they would have to be brought before this House and implemented into law by way of primary legislation. I note that the Lord Chancellor intends to reinstate clause 2, but I say to him, having read the debate in the Lords, that legitimate concerns about parliamentary scrutiny, or the lack thereof, in relation to delegated legislation were raised.

Let me pick up on what other hon. Members have said. If it is the case, as it appears to me, that the Government’s clear policy is to rejoin the Lugano convention—obviously, we would need to do that quickly—I suggest to the Lord Chancellor, and I am indebted to the Law Society of Scotland for this suggestion, that one way around this would be to reintroduce clause 2 on the basis that it focuses only on the implementation of the Lugano convention. I believe that was suggested by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). If the Government are insistent on bringing it back on a general basis, might I suggest attaching a sunset clause to it, perhaps for a year or so?

More broadly, the Government need to establish a clear and comprehensive approach to ratifying treatments, one that includes an appropriate role for this Parliament in providing scrutiny, because when the transition period ends, the UK will negotiate and sign treaties on a much larger scale than when we were members of the EU. Although the negotiating and signing of treaties is a function of government, exercised through prerogative powers, the increasing complexity of modern treaty obligations and the way they affect individual rights creates a need to ensure that they are adequately scrutinised here. As others have mentioned, it is particularly important that that happens when criminal offences are being created, or indeed amended or extended, because that has particular implications for individual rights. Let me finish by saying that if the Government do not find a way to enhance parliamentary scrutiny of these matters, the promise that leaving the EU meant taking back control will be made a mockery of.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

I accept my hon. Friend’s point, but the way it has been framed thus far is, “Look, this is constitutionally unprecedented.” It is not constitutionally unprecedented, and that ought to be borne in mind.

The distinguished Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), made the proper point about criminal laws, and I recognise that that is something that we should look at carefully. It would be going too far to suggest that delegated legislation is not used to introduce criminal laws. An extremely distinguished paper was produced by academics at the University of Glasgow which went so far as to say that the overwhelming majority of criminal offences are created by delegated legislation, particularly where they are highly specific, technical, environmental offences and so on, so it is not without precedent at all, but I recognise that the point requires consideration.

In short, the Bill will future-proof our legislative requirements in this area for the years to come, while at the same time ensuring that UK businesses, individuals and families can continue to benefit from an efficient and effective framework to help resolve cross-border disputes. It will also ensure that our domestic laws can keep up to date with the latest developments in private international law in international forums, and that the UK can implement any agreements it intends to join in a timely manner while maintaining appropriate parliamentary oversight. I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENTS) BILL [LORDS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

2. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings in Committee of the whole House are commenced.

3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

4. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to other proceedings up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

5. Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Leo Doherty.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will now suspend the sitting for three minutes; those who are leaving the Chamber should do so carefully.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th June 2020 Commons Chamber

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

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

I now have to say something, because we are moving into new territory. The Speaker announced yesterday that we will be using the new system in the voting Lobby, recorded by pass readers. I will not give the instruction to lock the Doors earlier than 25 minutes after this Division has now been called, although I expect that time to be reduced as the new system beds down. I urge all hon. Members to be patient during this process and, in particular, to observe the requirements of social distancing. I ask all hon. Members, other than the Front Benchers and Tellers, to leave the Chamber by the Doors behind me. Members should join the queue to vote in Westminster Hall to vote. Members should enter the Lobby and swipe their pass on one of the pass readers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier, the deferred Division on abortion legislation for Northern Ireland was announced, and the votes were Ayes 253, Noes 136. My mathematical calculations indicate that there were 261 abstentions. My understanding would be that many of those people abstained because they felt the Northern Ireland Assembly should have been the body that looked at this. If we add the Noes, who voted against the abortion legislation in this House, and the abstentions, it comes to a figure of 397 out of 650. My point of order is: has the House expressed its true wishes in relation to this legislation?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. The short answer to that is yes: we only count the votes of those who actually vote. We do not know what lies behind those who abstain.