Offensive Weapons Bill (First sitting)

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Louise Haigh]

Q Just to come back on that, the Government would obviously argue that they have a serious violence strategy and that there are measures alongside it. Do you actually oppose mandatory minimum sentences for under-18s?

Rob Owen: There have got to be two things. One is that there have to be regulations and laws, and I completely get that. At the same time, there has also got to be some form of common sense and humanisation about that situation and about what the best thing is for that person to ensure that they do not create another victim.

My experience of parents of victims, sadly, is that what they are most obsessed about is ensuring that no other child suffers and no other parent has to go through what they have gone through. What we are trying to achieve is that the best environment for that to happen is available. But that is often not just about sentencing; that has got to be about a package of support that is put in place.

Patrick Green: It is a difficult one. Certainly, from the victim’s perspective, many of the young people who have been victims of knife crime are often concerned that the perpetrator is back on the streets very quickly, and that heightens their feeling of insecurity. Our view in terms of first-time offences is, yes. Young people carry knives for a range of reasons; some of them may be around protection, and people are just making a mistake. Certainly, when it comes to second offences, there is due concern there about the young person falling into a trend and sentencing really playing a part in helping take that young person off the street.

The key issue is the support from the first offence to the second offence. I am not entirely sure that young people who are caught with a knife are getting the right level of support to help them and deter them from coming back on to the street the second time. The “two strikes and you’re out” should absolutely be the final option, but there should be a range of support. This is about rehabilitation and helping—as somebody said earlier on, if you are carrying a knife, it is almost a cry for help, and we should be doing far more around that.

John Poynton: Earlier this year, with Sarah Jones, we had young people from all around the country attend the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime to talk about their experiences. One of the overriding messages from them was that their experience of prison or the threat of prison was not a clear deterrent to being involved in risky or criminal behaviours. As Rob says, there needs to be a clear package of support. I think it is really important that that strategy is recognised. It is about vulnerability and safeguarding, and we need to look at how we support the young people.

The comment was made that young people are very clever at finding loopholes. We had a number of young women who talked about the fact that they are coerced into carrying weapons so that the young men are not caught carrying them. I am just making the point that the young people carrying the weapons are very possibly not the young people likely to be using them. That is a statement—just to recognise that young women and very vulnerable young children are coerced into behaviours that they would not otherwise deem normal on their own.

You cannot have a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I am very aware that the strategy is not saying that—it is putting a raft of support in to look at how we work with these young people—but my concern would be the classic “cry wolf” issue or the “but what about” point that Patrick made. Young people will always know of someone else who has been stopped twice holding a weapon, who, perhaps quite rightly for a number of reasons, may not have been given a mandatory sentence. The issue is that that will always become the narrative, “In that case, it is not going to happen to me.”

I would push for a really broad package of support for young people and a very simple narrative around the issue, so that young people recognise that they should not be carrying weapons. We also need to look at why these young people are being coerced into carrying weapons or drugs or other things that they would not normally do on their own.

Jaf Shah: May I flip back briefly to an earlier question around engagement with schools? As I mentioned, our engagement in the UK at a programmatic level is embryonic, but what we know from our work overseas in terms of engaging with schools, schoolchildren, teachers and so on, and engaging from a very young age, is that it is a very effective way of engaging with children about the repercussions of a violent act—in particular acid violence. By the very nature of acid attacks, the face is targeted, so you have a very visible form of violence. When survivors go into schools and talk with children, the impact is very strong. They certainly realise that there is a human beyond the facial disfigurement and that they have their own narrative, and that story carries a very strong message.

I was very interested when I visited Scotland and met Dr Christine Goodall from Medics Against Violence. I thought that their work was absolutely brilliant. It is a strand of work that could work particularly well with survivors of acid attacks engaging with school children.

To fast-forward to the most recent question, it is enormously difficult around the mandatory sentencing of under-18s, because there are many complicating factors. I have been hearing locally that young children are actually carrying acid in schools—but as protection, because it has become so commonplace. I think it is a very difficult subject in terms of having an absolute answer. It requires, as everyone else has mentioned, a far more sophisticated package of engagement with groups who might be affected.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Q Mr Owen, I think you mentioned earlier that you are hearing about children as young as 10 or 11 carrying knives. At what age are children actually perpetrating acts of violence or being victims? How young are we talking about?

Rob Owen: Same age.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Really, same age?

Rob Owen: Yes.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Q Mr Shah, you mentioned that children at school are carrying acid—what age with them?

Jaf Shah: The demographics vary between London and outside London. Within London, particularly in the three boroughs that are most affected in east London, the average age might be late teens, but there have certainly been some high-profile cases where 16 or 17-year-olds have engaged in what might be described as a spree of attacks in a very short space of time.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Q We hear a lot, and we have heard it today, about men—primarily—and young men perpetrating these attacks. Is it all men? With knife crime, what are we talking about—70%, 80% or 90% men?

Rob Owen: There is obviously higher usage among men, but the focus now for a lot of these gangs is to recruit people who do not stand out, so women or young girls are more likely to get targeted to become members, because they are less likely to be stopped and searched, and so on. The interesting thing for us, particularly in the county lines world, where gangs are looking to export the drugs out of London, is that they are now recruiting locally. The old model was to use London kids to go out to Dover, Ramsgate, Margate or wherever, but now they are recruiting locally, and they are recruiting lots of girls—obviously less, but an increasing amount. The worry is that there is starting to be an overlap between not only transporting drugs and weapons but being used in the sex trade. So there is an increasingly nasty element of exploitation—modern slavery, effectively—that is happening, and that is happening with lots of young girls, sadly.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Q Finally, all of you have talked about the need for intensive support, interventions and so on, but I am still not 100% clear on exactly what that means. Mr Shah, you talked about education and ensuring that people understand the impact—the human stories behind the crimes committed—but what else is there? What else can be done? What works in terms of that intervention? Is it counselling, education, finding other activities or locking people up? What actually works?

Jaf Shah: A combination of interventions is required to deal with a pretty complicated scenario. Obviously, in understanding acid violence, we know that, effectively, 50% of acid attacks occur in London. Within London, the three boroughs most affected constitute probably in the region of about 35% of attacks. It is no coincidence that those three boroughs are the three poorest boroughs in London, so you have to think about the issues of disadvantage of many young men—it is predominantly young men.

From 2017, in our data, 75% of perpetrators were men, 10% women and the rest unknown. What we are seeing is, again, the gap in what those young men aspire to and what they can realistically achieve through legitimate means. The aspiration thing is a key element. Every young person aspires to achieve something, and that might mean material goods, but what happens if you are not going to achieve that aspirational goal?

Not only do we have to ensure that there is a very strong educational programme that works around issues of respect and anti-violence, but we have to create opportunities for those young men, in particular, to find alternatives. That might be further education; it might be university. Clearly, most young people want to have some money in their pockets, so the issues around employment opportunities also come into play. If you take a trauma approach to dealing with the problem, you have to understand that many young men who commit these crimes have probably been victims of violence themselves. You have to engage with them at that level as well.

It is a very complicated scenario—hence the fact that I think you need to have an integrated approach in dealing with the problem, because it requires engagement with so many different stakeholders. That is not going to happen very easily; it will take at least two years—maybe a year if you are lucky—to embed the infrastructure, align all the stakeholders to a clear objective and then deliver a programme of work.

Patrick Green: It is all the things you mention. If I can borrow from public health language, in a health setting, in preventative work, we send out positive help messages to everybody to eat well, exercise well, not drink too much and so on. We have those positive, preventative messages. If there is then early intervention in terms of screening, we screen people and hope that everything is positive. For those that are negative, we move in very quickly and intervene. We do whatever is necessary to stop it going to the next stage.

It is a similar approach to tackling youth violence and knife crime. We need to do far more in terms of the preventative work. The early intervention work can be all the things you mention plus 100 things more. It comes down to really good youth work. You have to really understand what is happening for the young person involved, both for them and in their environment. If you put the right measures around them and allow them to fail once or twice along the way, then, generally, you can pull young people back from that setting. Sadly, it is not just about doing a prescribed number of seven or eight different things, and I think the serious violence strategy captures a lot of this; it is about doing a large number of interventions in a strategic manner.

[Stephen Timms]

Q I want to ask some questions about the corrosive substance elements of the Bill, so I guess my questions are mainly to Mr Shah, but I would be interested to know what others have to say about this as well. Mr Shah, at the start you told us that you had done a freedom of information exercise, compiling data about acid attacks around the UK. Do you think that enough data on this subject is being collected at the moment and published by the Home Office?

Jaf Shah: No, but the Home Office last year commissioned the University of Leicester to look into the motivations behind the attacks. Some of the critical data and understanding of what types of corrosive fluids are being used in attacks could be produced through the forensic work conducted within hospitals and the investigation process when attacks are reported. There is a lack of data because it is a relatively new crime; well, it is not a new crime, as we all know—it is an old crime—but the numbers are so much higher than they have ever been in the past. Suddenly we are addressing a relatively new crime, and we are at those early stages where more data needs to be accumulated to better understand the problem, the motivations and the environment in which perpetrators are committing those attacks—to understand the real motivations behind those acts.

I commission a lot of research on the subject because it is a relatively new phenomenon here in the UK. I have commissioned law studies to understand what laws are in place in other countries, how we can learn from those laws and how they are being implemented.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Nigel Huddleston, and this will be the last question.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Q I will make it a short one. This is specifically for Mr Penhale. Clause 26 makes changes to the legal test of threatening with an offensive weapon. Can you explain the challenges you face with the current test?

Andrew Penhale: First, let me deal with some numbers. At the moment, we bring very few prosecutions for threatening with an offensive weapon, whereas we bring quite a number of prosecutions for possession. The difference in numbers is vast. To illustrate, I think last year there were about 9,000 prosecutions for possession whereas only about 600 for threatening. One of the difficulties is that the test requires us not only to show that the person who has an offensive weapon is using it in a threatening way, but that there is also a risk of immediate serious violence—the test is the risk and immediacy of that violence.

The Bill is designed to change that test to shift the evidential burden on to the reasonable belief of a member of the public or reasonable person and their expectation of a risk of serious violence. Rather than having a test that can essentially be objected to, because, for instance, there might not be a proximity and therefore no immediate risk, when the people witnessing the threatening behaviour feel a sense of immediate risk, even though they may not be immediately proximate, that offence would now be captured. So it would capture a degree of behaviour that is not currently captured, and, obviously, it is a more serious offence than simply possessing an offensive weapon. I hope I have explained that clearly.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of our oral evidence session. The Committee will continue to take oral evidence this afternoon from 2 pm. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence and ask the Government Whip to move the adjournment.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Paul Maynard)

Visit of President Trump: Policing

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I understand fully the point that the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee is making, although I believe there needs to be room for short-term funding mechanisms to deal with crises and exceptional events, which is why the exceptional grant pot is extremely important. Any bids from police forces involved in this policing operation will be judged according to the existing criteria for that pot of money.

The right hon. Lady asked about arrangements for long-term funding. She and I have had a number of exchanges on this through the Committee and on the Floor of the House. She will know the backdrop, which is that we as a country are investing £1 billion more in our police system than we were three years ago. We have a funding settlement for 2019-20 that will come before the House for debate in November or December, and I am doing exactly what she would expect me to do in engaging with police chiefs and police and crime commissioners to get the most up-to-date view on demand and resilience and to make sure that what we bring forward in November or December is fit for purpose and attuned to the reality of modern-day policing.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

I am very proud to declare that I love America. My wife is American, my son was born in America, my daughter has a US passport, and I lived and worked in America for more than 10 years. I love America and Americans, but I sometimes feel I am almost the only one in this place to do so. [Interruption.] Does the Minister agree that the visit of a US President is symbolic of our overall relationship with our most important ally, and that people can protest respectfully and demonstrate peacefully while doing so in a manner that does not overburden the British taxpayer?

[Mr Hurd]

I am not going to get into a debate about whether my hon. Friend looks American, but he makes a fundamental point: any visit by any President of the United States of America is a significant and historic event for this country. The reality, although I detect some discomfort about this among Opposition Members, is that President Trump is the democratically elected leader of our most important ally and this relationship has enormous consequences for the security and prosperity of all our constituents. Of course we should welcome him. We should also be absolutely professional, as everyone would expect, in making sure that the security arrangements for such an important visit are robust and fit for purpose, and I am satisfied that they are.

Money Laundering

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I will not come to the House and publish the names of individuals who may or may not be the subject of an investigation or of operations against them because it could threaten our ability to have an effect on them. Needless to say, we are determined to ensure that we use intelligence-led policing to find money and deal with those individuals, whether they are from here or abroad.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

These crimes can be horrendously complex. Can we be confident that the SFO, the NCA and other bodies have the skills and resources to investigate them properly?

[Mr Wallace]

Yes. As I said at the beginning, one of the challenges of taking on people with deep pockets or large corporations is that they have no qualms about setting off to the Supreme Court or the High Court to challenge us. We are keen to ensure that we support the NCA with unexplained wealth orders, because some of the people to whom they serve them have a brass neck and are happy to challenge us. That is why we put in blockbuster funding for the SFO, which means that when there is a case of significant scale, it can access funding directly from the Treasury to ensure that money is not a barrier to taking on some of those very bad people.

Hate Crime

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

Again, reflecting on the overall tone of this urgent question, I will not rise to the bait, as it were, in that question. Frankly, I think we can all work together to call out hate crime when it happens. We have already today, sadly, heard the forms it can take, including anti-Semitism. Last week, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) spoke about the experience of misogyny; it is not yet a hate crime, but was the cause of much debate last week. We are very clear, and I think the House has been very clear today, that these letters and their sentiments are wholly abhorrent and are to be condemned.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

What practical support is being provided to help the targets and victims of hate crime?

Salisbury Incident

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

The chief medical officer has told us, given the information we have now, that she thinks the threat to the public is low, which I know will reassure local health officials in Wiltshire.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

I agree we should be cautious about attributing guilt at this stage, but does the Home Secretary share my and my constituents’ anger about the cruel nature of this crime, which could so easily have resulted in considerably greater collateral damage, and will she therefore assure me and my constituents that eventually the full force of the law will be brought down upon the perpetrators?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Just because we want to approach this with a cool head in order to collect the evidence, it does not mean we do not share the outrage that he and his constituents clearly feel. When we have the evidence, I will return to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

As the former Policing Minister knows very well, we have to look at the police settlement in the round, balancing the cash that the taxpayer pays from the centre—the Home Office—and the cash that the local taxpayer pays through the precept. We responded to both the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs Council on additional precept flexibility. That allowed us to put forward a settlement that will see investment in the police increase by £450 million next year—an increase that the Labour party opposed.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Is the Home Office confident that it and its agencies can compete with the private sector, and recruit and retain people with the key digital and cyber skills that we need?

[The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)]

For security reasons, I am unable to comment on specific recruitment levels and on the geographical distribution of police and intelligence agencies in specialist areas, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are seeing strong levels of recruitment. GCHQ and the National Crime Agency are doing great work in encouraging the next generation of cyber-sleuths through their Cyber First programme.

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

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

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

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on introducing this Bill. He has a long and proud record of supporting families and progressive policies in this House, and it is a genuine honour to follow his lead. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on her emotional and heartfelt speech—I am sure it is one of many that we are about to hear today.

The Bill covers four important areas, and I am aware that many colleagues wish to speak, so I will talk about just two of those areas, although I make it clear that I have great sympathy for and support all four elements of the Bill. First, I firmly support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for the names of mothers to be registered on marriage certificates, and I am glad that the measure is supported by the Government and many in this House, as it has been for a long time.

There are currently some 2 million single parents in the country, and about 90% of them are women. As it stands, those woman are not able to be registered on their children’s marriage certificate—what a bizarre situation in this day and age. It is also worth noting that both parents’ names are, in fact, recorded on civil partnership certificates.

I also agree with the argument that we should use this opportunity to introduce further reform of the overall process of how marriages are registered, rather than simply changing the content of the marriage entry itself. Simply amending the existing registers might be the quickest course of action, but it does little to improve the overall efficiency of the system. If any further amendments are required in future, it would mean that all 84,000 registers would need to be replaced again, no doubt at considerable cost. Britain is obviously proud of its technological innovation, and we are leaders in this digital age, so surely it should not be too difficult for us to think of a way for marriage entries to be held on a single electronic register, which I understand may well be the intention.

I have received quite a lot of correspondence from constituents on extending civil partnerships to opposite- sex couples, admittedly on both sides of the argument, but I have a clear view on the subject. Although civil partnerships were introduced to extend the rights available to same-sex couples, rather than as an alternative to marriage, it has had the unintended consequence of creating an inherent inequality on the basis of sexual orientation. By trying to eliminate one form of discrimination, we have unintentionally created another.

I am sure colleagues will be aware of the statistics on the increasing number of children in the UK whose parents are living as unmarried couples and so do not have the same legal protections enjoyed by families of married and same-sex couples. Of course, some of those unmarried couples may simply not wish to enter any form of legal union, but that is not the case for many couples in my constituency. They want their relationship to be recognised in law but, for a variety of reasons, do not wish to marry. My hon. Friend gave the example of divorced Catholics, and I know of several such examples.

Although I am happily married, and I would like to believe my wife would say the same, I accept that marriage is not for everybody. I am sympathetic to those who dislike either the symbolism of marriage or the implications of ownership inherent in legally defining couples as “man and wife”—interestingly not “man and woman” but “man and wife.” That definition distinctly includes the element of possession that many people find uncomfortable.

Of course, expanding civil partnerships could have a significant effect on a number of other policy areas, including pensions. It is right that we take time to assess what those implications may be, but I implore the Government not to take too much time assessing those implications. I hope the Government listen carefully to the arguments made today and act accordingly, because Britain has changed, attitudes have changed and it is time that the law caught up.

Stalking Protection Bill

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 19th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for presenting this important and timely Bill.

Let me begin by quoting a victim of stalking whose words were highlighted in last year’s “Living in fear” report, which was mentioned by the hon. Lady:

“You carry it all the time…it’s with you day in day out. Day in day out…it’s in the back of your mind all the time, ‘What is he going to do? What are we going to find…Who’s going to come knocking at our door?’”

Imagine how that feels. Imagine feeling too scared to go out to get a pint of milk or walk your dog. Imagine feeling so scared that you have to move house.

When a celebrity is being stalked, we take notice, but this offence is happening every day to so many people. The 2016 Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that one in five women and one in 10 men had experienced stalking since the age of 16. That means that millions of people have to deal with the terrifying consequences of stalking. Statistics show that 80% of victims are female and 70% of perpetrators are male. Apart from the horrendous psychological trauma of stalking itself, it often leads to horrific crimes, including domestic violence, sexual assault and murder. According to a study of more than 350 femicides, cited by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust:

“Stalking behaviours were present in 94% of the cases”.

In too many cases, there is not enough evidence for police to make an arrest before it is too late. The stalking protection orders proposed in the Bill would be an important early intervention tool for police officers while a criminal investigation was ongoing. That early intervention that could literally mean the difference between life and death. The orders are designed for use particularly in cases in which stalking occurs outside the context of domestic abuse, but it is important to reiterate that the links between stalking and domestic abuse are clear. The Metropolitan Police Service found that 40% of victims of domestic homicide had been stalked. Stalking occurs in isolation or as a component of a much wider profile of abuse. High-severity stalking and harassment can include threats to kill. Research has showed that one in two—50%—of domestic stalkers will act on that threat. It is therefore crucial that the police, the criminal justice system and other agencies involved receive comprehensive training on domestic abuse and coercive control and that the focus of the new protection order is not on stalking alone.

Stalking does not have to lead to physical violence to be incredibly harmful. In a case study from the “Living in fear” report, Elaine became aware of seven websites that were created about her containing malicious content, including pictures of her and details of her personal life which were then shared with her children and employers. When Elaine initially contacted the police, she felt that they were not interested. They advised Elaine that there was not enough evidence to arrest the person as there was no direct threat. It took 12 months of monitoring the posts before the person was arrested. Understandably, Elaine was scared to go out of the house. She had to change to a lower-paid job where she would have some anonymity. Her children had to move schools and she has suffered with anxiety.

A stalking protection order would have given the police an option for an early intervention that would have protected Elaine while the investigation was ongoing. Like Elaine, many victims report being unsatisfied with the police response to stalking.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making an important point, particularly about internet stalking. In terms of the SPOs, does she agree that some kind of internet tracking capability must be included, as so much of this activity now takes place online?

[Sarah Champion]

I agree, and that is the case for many crimes now, but unfortunately the police do not have the resources to train up their staff, and that is something we all need to address.

New guidance to the police is required under this Bill. I have no doubt that the police want to improve their response, but to do that they need the appropriate resources, powers and training. This Bill will begin that process by providing police with an important protection and prevention tool, but the recent debacle surrounding the John Worboys case shows that, as a country, we need to do much more to support victims.

We have heard today that stalking can be one of the most psychologically destructive crimes. Victims of stalking often feel so threatened that they change the way they live, and, like Elaine, 50% of victims have curtailed or stopped work due to stalking. Last year Chloe Hopkins bravely spoke out about the depression, bulimia, post-traumatic stress disorder and even suicide attempt that followed the seven years of stalking that she endured. The forthcoming domestic violence Bill will be an opportunity for the Government to carry out a review of victim support services, and I hope that victims of stalking will be included in that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

The Met’s budget is set to grow to £2.5 billion. There are reserves of £200 million in the Met. In addition, the Mayor has his own reserves. Funding per head for officer numbers is running at over one and a half times the national average in London. It is time—I speak as a Londoner and a London MP—for the Mayor of London to give a serious answer to the question, “What are you doing?”, because at the moment the answer is just writing letters to the Home Secretary, and that is not good enough.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Although the number of police officers is very important, so are their skills and the nature of the crime they are dealing with. Given that we are now 20 times more likely to be a victim of online crime than offline crime, can the Minister assure us that the police have the skills to deal with crime in the digital age?

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for making an incredibly important point. I know that my constituents are much more vulnerable to crime on their computers at home than they are when walking down Ruislip High Street. We have to respond to the changing nature of crime in this country. The number of police officers matters a great deal, but the capabilities inside the service matter enormously. That is why this Government are investing £1.9 billion in cyber-security.

Harassment in Public Life

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I agree completely with the hon. Lady. I had a similar experience when I was a Back-Bench MP, when somebody said, “Well you’re an MP—you can take it.” MPs are not blushing wallflowers, but nor should we have to take that sort of abuse. I would welcome the sort of approach she sets out.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that we must all take personal responsibility on this issue and that any Member of this place whose name or hashtag is persistently associated with hate-filled comments on social media must do everything to distance themselves from such campaigns? Otherwise, they deserve the disdain of the entire House.

[Amber Rudd]

That is a very good point about something constructive that each of us can do. When we see one of our colleagues in the House receiving this sort of hate crime, we can go out of our way to call it out or, at the very least, not participate in any sort of endorsement, which sometimes does take place.