Operation Midland Independent Report

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

All allegations of crime, particularly such sensitive allegations, should be taken seriously, properly recorded, assessed sensitively, but then investigated with due impartiality. Those are the guidelines by which the police should be operating, and we will take steps to ensure that that is the case.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

As a neighbour of Ted Heath, an admirer of Field Marshal Bramall, a colleague of Harvey Proctor, a friend of Leon Brittan, and—this is a matter of public record—as someone twice accused of this sort of thing by people who were bad, mad or sad, I think the House can agree that we can support the police and let them account for their failings when they come.

Will the Minister also get the inspector to look at the GOLD Group on Operation GIANNA? A written parliamentary question on the matter was answered by his predecessor on 25 July about the case of Gurpal Virdi. A vertical slice through the Metropolitan police managed to accuse a good officer of things he had not done at places he had not been and when none of the evidence linked him to it. All the evidence showed that the complainant was untruthful, and the weapon that was supposedly used on the complainant was introduced to the police force eight years after the event that was supposed to have taken place. May I ask that Operation GIANNA is referred to the inspector to see whether it is appropriate for him to consider it as well?

[Kit Malthouse]

I am happy to look again at that case. I should declare that, as a previous deputy mayor for policing in London and chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, I did have dealings with Mr Virdi and his case, so it is not unfamiliar to me. I would be more than happy to meet with my hon. Friend to discuss what further steps may need to be taken, if any.

Far-right Violence and Online Extremism

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I will get to that, but the hon. Gentleman did mention the Prevent review. I want the person reviewing Prevent to be as free as possible to examine people’s views, perceptions and evidence, and I would like those who criticise Prevent the most to produce evidence rather than anecdotes. The Government will, of course, listen to whatever the review produces.

I turn to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. Hopefully, the appointment will happen in a matter of days or weeks. We are at an advanced stage in the selection process. Like the hon. Gentleman, I would like an appointment as soon as possible, because no Government benefit without an Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.

On new regulations regarding online harm, I know that Opposition Members will be impatient, but they will have to wait for the publication of the online harms White Paper. The document will obviously examine regulation versus voluntary action, but I have said on the record several times that a voluntary system is not enough and that regulation or other methods of encouragement should be explored.

I have also been clear that many online companies are hugely profitable and global, so whatever regulation we explore will have to be deliverable. That is why I met representatives of the G7 in Toronto last year to discuss what the G7 can do collectively; why the Home Secretary attended the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, as did his predecessor, to ensure that countries around the world can get to grips with the problem; and why the European Union is taking forward plans to seek regulations in certain areas, especially the time in which content should be taken down.

If we are to deal with the problem, we must take a layered international approach to regulation—otherwise, companies will simply move their servers to escape their obligations. It is one thing to deal with the big companies that have a nexus here, but there are many tiny companies spreading hate around the world that may have servers in jurisdictions that we cannot reach. That is why we need an international consensus to deal with the challenge.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The House will welcome the calm and purposeful way in which my right hon. Friend spoke this afternoon and in his broadcast round this morning. He was matched by the Opposition spokesman, who has shown that this is a task for the community. This is not just about other faiths, but the whole community, and we must stand with the Muslims as we stand with the Jews.

Will my right hon. Friend go on encouraging the Community Security Trust—the CST—to share with our mosques and Islamic societies the basic steps that people can take, within the law, to help to raise levels of confidence and security?

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend makes the strongest point of all, which is that we will defeat this challenge through peer group pressure and by coming together to show what is unacceptable. The CST has already offered online material to help advise other places of worship in how to make themselves safe. But the fact is that our law enforcement cannot do this on their own. The current threat is from sudden violent extremists—people who, in minutes, can step outside their front door, grab a knife or car and wreak murder on our streets. That is not going to be spotted by a police officer on every corner, or a large intelligence service, without the support of the public, who can understand their neighbours and bring any worries they have to the attention of the correct authorities, to make sure we say, “This is not acceptable.”

International Women’s Day

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

A name was recorded in error, I gather.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. These things sometimes happen when the Tellers cannot count. I once had to confess that I had got something wrong. In those days it mattered, but now it does not seem to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I suggest that that is the sort of thing best kept quiet, really.

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

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 26th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

My hon. Friend knows that I support him in his endeavours. Given his response to our hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), perhaps the Government should indicate that they will consider taxation relationships between people who have a relationship but not a partnership. That may involve siblings, or someone who has stayed at home to look after an elderly parent, but the current taxation arrangements are desperately unfair. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that that issue should not necessarily complicate the Bill.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is right. This Bill is about civil partnerships, which are a different sort of relationship. I know the issue is fraught with all sorts of nuances, but my original point stands.

Just this week, the Government announced that primary legislation could be introduced to prescribe food labelling in the light of the recent death of a customer of Pret a Manger and that those measures could be in place by next summer. No Supreme Court ruling hangs over that problem with the law, so why cannot we achieve today the change under discussion with the new clause to my Bill? If the Government allowed the amended Bill to proceed, they would send a strong and reassuring message about their real intent and put their money where their mouth is.

Foreign Fighters and the Death Penalty

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

Because we are interested in seeking criminal justice in line with international law and our law. Where we feel the assurance might get in the way of being able to do that—[Interruption.] No, no; if the right hon. Gentleman faced the choice of either having to see these people go free and potentially wander around his constituency or go to trial, he might take a different view. In this case, Ministers looked at the request before them and, acting lawfully and in line with the OSJA, chose to take that decision.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend, at the beginning, stated Government policy. I agree with the Government policy, and I am glad that the Government do as well. Will the Minister confirm that people accused of murdering British nationals can be tried in this country if there is evidence, even if they are not UK nationals?

[Mr Wallace]

Yes. Citizenship is not a factor. If we have the evidence and we can try them, we will. However, the point was made earlier about rendition and so on. It is one thing to share evidence with an ally or international partner, but the question arises about how you bring them back. The individuals we are talking about, and foreign fighters in general, are currently being held by non-state actors in Syria. How those people are brought back is a big challenge for all European states—and indeed the United States.

Minors Entering the UK: 1948 to 1971

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I, too, begin by paying tribute to Mr Vernon, the petitioner.

There is a great deal in what the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said that everyone of conscience, sensitivity and feeling can agree with wholeheartedly. On any view, this has been a shocking episode, and it has inspired feelings of some shame—shame because this is not the country we are, these are not our values and this is not the kind of country we aspire to be. Forgive me for repeating a point that does bear emphasis and on which I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman: the Windrush generation are British. They are part of the warp and weft of this nation. They have made a profound contribution—in business, science, commerce, sport and industry. We all feel profound distress at the way some individuals—far too many individuals—have been impacted.

It is right that we pause to think: how did it come to this? It is important to step back and look, with a little granularity, in a little detail, at what happened. It seems that the Immigration Act 1971 provided that those who arrived before it came into force should be treated as having indefinite leave to remain, despite not having the specific documentation. Afterwards, of course, people required the document in the passport or whatever it was. It is now tolerably plain that attempts to clamp down on illegal immigration have had unintended and wholly unacceptable consequences. The system has failed. It has acted indiscriminately and in a way that causes us the shame that I mentioned.

We may be able to derive a small sense of solace. I have been encouraged, to some extent, in hearing the response of the Government. There has been no attempt to deny that what happened was wrong; no attempt to pretend that the system has worked as it should have; no attempt to deny the impact, which is profound; and a fairly, if I may put it like this, grovelling acknowledgement that the system has gone wrong.

We can take some small comfort, too, in seeing the speed and robustness of the response. That is quite right. The taskforce has been set up not to hinder applicants, but to help them to demonstrate that they are entitled to live in the UK. That is quite right. It has been tasked with resolving cases inside two weeks, because for individuals such as Elwaldo Romeo, who was referred to with great articulacy by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), it must be a peculiar form of torture, almost, to feel that the Home Office could come knocking. These cases must be resolved quickly, because justice delayed is justice denied. No language tests—quite right. No cost—quite right. A helpline—quite right. Also and importantly, those who made their lives here but have retired to their country of origin must be able to come back to the UK. Fees must be waived. It is right that the Government are working with embassies and high commissions to make that the case.

What is the net effect of all this? It means that anyone from the Windrush generation who now wants to become a British citizen can. The net effect is that the burden of proof has, in effect, been shifted. Something adverted to by the right hon. Member for Tottenham was compensation. That scheme should be run by an independent person, and I understand that that is the Government’s intention. Yes, things have gone wrong, but it is absolutely right that the Government have acted decisively, without seeking to cavil, deny or shift the blame to anyone else.

Where I respectfully—with great and genuine respect—apply a slightly different context to the points that the right hon. Gentleman made is that I think we must, when speaking about the issue of illegal immigration, emphasise that there is a distinction and explain why there is that distinction. The reason we draw the distinction is that illegal immigration, as distinct from the immigration of those who came here in the Windrush generation and subsequently, encourages exploitation of the most vulnerable. It is a cruel and pernicious way to behave.

Illegal immigration is also unfair on those who play by the rules and do the right thing. They include, by the way, people from the Windrush generation, who, exactly as the right hon. Gentleman described with great articulacy, answered Britain’s call to come to our country to help, work, support and build. They did the right thing. The truth is that some of the most vociferous critics of those who try to game the system—those who get round it and try to bend the rules—are often those people who have played by the rules, come to this country and done the right thing. We must draw that distinction not just because it is right, but because it is fair to those who have played by the rules.

The other point is that we should not seek to infantilise people by suggesting that the rhetoric about being tough on illegal immigration is new. It is not. It is entirely appropriate that, in the past, Governments of all stripes have talked and acted tough. Let us take a moment to consider what has applied. In 1982, under a Conservative Government, the NHS began treatment charges for illegal immigrants. That has the advantage of common sense, one might think. Those people who have come here legally need to feel that they are getting a proper share of public services and that they are not being wrongly diverted.

In 1997, the Government instituted checks by employers on people’s right to work here. In 1999, measures were imposed on access to benefits. We were then under a Labour Government, of course. In 2008, civil penalties of up to £10,000 were imposed for those who employed illegal migrants. I do not criticise any of that, and to suggest that what has happened now has emerged from a clear blue sky is misleading and unfair to those who are in the eye of this storm.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I shall make this point now, because it is one that those listening to the debate will not necessarily know. When it comes to healthcare, emergency treatment is available to all, regardless of who they are; it is more routine and elective care for which there are, rightly, checks. I am not criticising my hon. Friend; I am just making sure that people understand that no one is denied emergency care in this country.

[Alex Chalk]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying that point; he is absolutely right to do so. The point I was making about the context is that measures have accrued over time. I am grateful to him for that point of detail.

I do not quote what I am about to in the interest of inflaming matters, because I do not think we should be in the business of inflaming matters; we should be in the business of cold, cool assessment. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) was right when he quoted an Immigration Minister from 2007, who described his policy as flushing illegal migrants out and

“trying to create a much more hostile environment in this country if you are here illegally.”

I do not think that, at the time, that was a particularly unreasonable thing to say. And it was John Reid, as Home Secretary, who said:

“We need to make living and working here illegally ever more uncomfortable and constrained.”

The reality is that Governments of all stripes have talked and acted tough.

All I really want to say is that this is a shameful episode. As has been indicated, it is a case of error, not conspiracy. It is incumbent on this Government, because they happen to be in office, to make things right, but we owe it to the people of this country, whether they are here from the Windrush generation or from elsewhere, to look at this coolly, frankly and, above all, fairly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I am sorry I was not here for the beginning of the debate. I was taking part in questions in the Chamber, where a statement had been asked for. May I say to my brother, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), that I was honoured to be at his wedding? I have to declare that I stand as godfather to the aunt of his children. I am also proud to have known Sam King. Along with Arthur Torrington, he got the Windrush Foundation and the Equiano Society going 21 years ago. I may be fortunate that the people I know whom I would regard as being of the Windrush generation— I use that as a way of embracing a large number of people—have been bishops in my church and headteachers in my schools, and have held every kind of job across the spectrum of our society.

What we have found in this debate is too many people saying, “The other side did not get things right.” What we have lost is a sense of what each of us can do to try to ensure that we do get it right. Some of the lessons I have learned have come from a book by Will Somerville called “Immigration under New Labour”, published by Policy Press at the University of Bristol. It covers 1997 to 2007, so it is not the full period, but in chapters 16, 17 and 18 there is quite a lot of talk about targets. In the days when I served as a junior Minister and my wife served as a more senior Minister, people laughed at us because we would have between three and 11 boxes over a weekend. Various people said, “Why do you read what is put in front of you?” The answer is that we can find that voice among the public officials or the outsiders who say, “Please look at this. It is not sensible. It is not right.”

I was going to appear on “Newsnight” a few days ago, but I got bounced because the subject of the Windrush generation was seen as less important than the future retirement of the manager of Arsenal football club. To some people that may be the right sense of priorities, but it cost me an opportunity to talk about the many people affected by the way the system has worked—albeit for a minority, but that minority matters just as much as the majority. As most people now say, we should not be saying to people who have lived here at peace, paid taxes, registered to vote and contributed as British nationals, “You have to prove what you were doing for elements of your life for each year for the past 40 years.” I could not do that; why should they have to do it?

The presumption ought to be that if someone has obviously lived here for long enough to qualify as a recognised British national—as a subject, a citizen—they should not have to go find all these documents. We should say, “This person has been on the electoral register for the past 15 years. It is clear that they came out of a school. Here they are in a confirmation class. Here they are in Guides or Scouts. Here they are at a college or university, or in a recognised training situation, or even just as a taxpayer.”

The Inland Revenue knows who has been paying taxes. The Department for Work and Pensions knows who has been paying national insurance. If, on the face of it, that shows they have absolutely no chance of being an illegal immigrant who has come in during the past two or three years, they should be granted British citizenship formally, recognising what is formally right anyway.

I do not want to criticise the media, because we rely on them, but what on earth was that nonsense about the landing cards? British subjects did not complete landing cards. They did not do it. The fact that the landing cards were or might have been destroyed is irrelevant. That should have been obvious to anyone doing work experience at a newspaper, let alone someone working in one of our great news organisations, the Press Association or the BBC.

[Emma Reynolds]

rose—

[Siobhain McDonagh]

rose—

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The hon. Ladies can sort out between themselves who I am giving way to.

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman says the landing cards are irrelevant, but my constituent Paulette Wilson was sent a letter from the Home Office out of the blue in 2015. It told her that there was no evidence of her entry to the UK, despite the fact that it had destroyed that evidence.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I give way again.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

In the cases of Trevor, Ken and Neville, if they had had those landing cards, that would have been proof of their entry.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

First, I do not know when landing cards came in. If someone arrived on the Empire Windrush in 1948 or on a ship in the next 15 or 20 years, I do not think there were landing cards. Secondly, if they were British, would they have been asked to fill in a landing card, even if they had arrived by air? I think the answer is no.

I campaigned for Krishna Maharaj, who spent 31 years wrongly imprisoned in Florida. He is British. He was born in Trinidad, but being born in Trinidad made him British, and British people do not fill in landing cards. We allow distractions to take away from the common-sense point: what on earth are we doing thinking that the landing cards would solve the problem? Even the manifests do not solve the nationality problem. When people came here, especially from the Caribbean, after the war, they were British until our laws started to change. But we are not talking about that generation; we are talking about the generation of the Sam Kings, the Arthur Torringtons and the like, who also wrote about the contribution that the people from the Caribbean made before 1948 as well as during 1948 and afterwards.

For those who want to know where targets came from, they were not new in 2010 or in 2015. They are discussed in the Will Somerville book, “Immigration under New Labour”, and I have no doubt they were probably there before new Labour as well. What we should say to those who are undocumented British nationals, subjects, citizens, is, “How soon and how easily can we give you the documents you need?” We are not talking about someone who says they are 17 when they are actually 23 and have sadly had to come across the Mediterranean from Syria or from another country in the past two or three years. We are talking about people who, just by looking at them, I can tell have been around for almost as long as I have, or as long as my children have, which is still quite some time. We should say, “Let’s get you documented in the easiest, fastest, simplest and fairest way possible.”

Those advising Ministers, whether inside a Department or outside, should always say to a Minister, “Is this fair? Is it right? Will it work?” I look to this man here, my brother, the right hon. Member for Tottenham. If we sat together for three quarters of an hour I could probably solve much of this and take away the anxiety. We could apologise for the distress that has been wrongly caused to too many for too long, but the fact is common sense normally works. Let us apply it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point those people out, and I am very conscious—

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lyn Brown]

rose—

[Caroline Nokes]

May I conclude my point before more people jump in? The right hon. Gentleman is right to point that issue out. As the former Home Secretary said last week, we will facilitate those people’s coming home if they wish to. Of course, we must also ensure that visas are available to those who have settled back in their country of origin or elsewhere, should they wish to come here on a visit or relocate here permanently. That is crucial. It is important that we ensure that we enable that to happen for them.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

It may be that the Minister wants to write to the right hon. Member for Tottenham after the debate. Officials may want—not today, but in time—to consider and advise Ministers on checking with airlines. Often, those people went with a valid ticket to an airline desk and were refused boarding by the airline because they might be refused entry to the country. The airlines will almost certainly have a record of that. It would be useful information.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which I have made to officials. I was very concerned that people might be turned away at airline desks. We absolutely must not let that happen. Equally, the Border Force in the UK has to understand that this is a generation of people to whom we owe a duty to get things right from this point forward. We cannot allow this dreadful situation to arise again.

Vote 100 and International Women’s Day

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I am so pleased that we are making time available today to continue the important tradition of marking International Women’s Day. I thank Mr Speaker, because he has done it again—he has made history. He helped me to raise the International Women’s Day flag over the Parliament buildings for the first time in history, and for that, I salute him.

This year’s International Women’s Day has been a bit of a rollercoaster of emotions for me. Reading about the struggle that led to some women gaining the right to vote in a general election 100 years ago has highlighted how far we have come, but also just how far we still have to go. It led me to reflect on the persistent inequalities that relate to class and ethnicity, as well as to gender. Working-class men were denied the vote until 1918, and their enfranchisement paved the way for working-class women. But our demand for equality goes beyond the vote, vital though it is. We are interested in the advancement of equality, on a broad front, and we cannot ignore the fact that class and race often go hand in hand in the struggle for equality.

There is little doubt that 2018 is turning out to be a landmark year for women. The decades of campaigning that led to women’s suffrage a century ago highlights what women can achieve when we unite and organise. If all women had been granted the vote in 1918, we women would have been the majority, but it was another 10 years before full electoral equality for women was enshrined in the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928. That legislation was the result of decades of struggle by famous and not-so-famous people.

I remember hearing the saying, “If you hold the pen, you write the history.” That is hard to understand until we start reading history and realise that there are bits missing. My theme today is taken from the writer Virginia Woolf, who said that for most of history, Anonymous was a woman. At the march on Sunday, I was asked who I was marching for. I said that I was marching for the hidden history of women—for the women whose campaigning zeal did not make them famous, and for the women who suffered, and still suffer, in silence.

The role of women of colour in the suffragette movement has often been overlooked. I am so grateful to the Commons Library for unearthing the case of Sarah Parker Remond, the only known woman of colour to have signed the first petition for women’s suffrage in 1866. She was a prominent African American lecturer, abolitionist and agent of the American Anti-Slavery Society. Sarah was an educated, independent woman of wealth. Why would she be hidden from the history of the suffragette movement? There can only really be one answer: the colour of her skin. Today, I salute Sarah Parker Remond in Parliament so that her name will live on in perpetuity in Hansard. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you.

A better-known woman of colour and suffragette is Sophia Duleep Singh. She is rightly celebrated even though she was born after the original suffrage petition. She campaigned for women nationally as well as locally. She has been the subject of a BBC documentary and a Royal Mail commemorative stamp. I treasure the photograph of me with a poster-sized version of that stamp—a small one would not have been very good, would it? The part played by the vast majority of black, Asian and minority ethnic women in the suffrage movement has been lost. They are basically a hidden history—a story that might never be told.

I am proud of the Opposition’s 50:50 shadow Cabinet, and I am truly proud of the fact that 45% of Labour MPs are women. One more heave, and we will have parity. All we need is a general election in the next couple of months. It is also notable that across the House, the number of women MPs is at a record high of 32%. We welcome women MPs from all parties in this place. If we could clap, I would say that we should give ourselves a round of applause—but not too loudly, because we still have persistent problems that will not go away unless we take a radical approach. We should applaud the Conservatives for electing a woman leader—

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Twice.

[Dawn Butler]

Twice, as the hon. Gentleman says. We should, however, note that for eight years the right hon. Lady has sat at the table of a Cabinet that has sanctioned £80 billion of tax and benefit changes, as a result of which more than 86% of cuts fall on the shoulders of women. So I say this: a round of applause, but not too loudly.

Online Hate Speech

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

Mr Speaker, thank you for your guidance regarding the criminal case. I hope the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) will understand if I do not reply to that particular element for the reasons you have set out, Mr Speaker.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words, and I share his views about America. I also love that country, having worked there for a year, and as I said in my opening answer, I am in awe of the mutual trust between us and the Americans, the effort they make to work with us, our shared values with the American people and the way their work has been so important in helping us on intelligence matters—it has undoubtedly saved British lives.

The hon. Gentleman asks what we have done about online social media extremism of various sorts. We have taken it extremely seriously, which is why I proscribed National Action, the first far-right group to be so proscribed as a terrorist organisation. He asks about other organisations to be proscribed. We are very careful in identifying what merits proscription. He may have a different view, but we abide by the letter of the law in being very clear where members or activists embark on actions that are or are not legal. We have to draw that line very carefully. We have therefore proscribed National Action and will always keep under review what other organisations may be proscribed.

The hon. Gentleman asks what else we are doing with online companies to ensure that the internet is free from dangerous material, and he will no doubt know that the UK has been leading in this area. The Prime Minister has called for more action. In the wake of the terrorist attacks this year, we called for a global internet forum for counter-terrorism, and I went myself to San Francisco for its launch in the summer. The internet companies are also taking action. Twitter now takes down 95% of illegal material with artificial intelligence. That it is now engaging in machine learning to take down this hate is an incredibly important investment and breakthrough in ensuring that more is taken down, but we are not complacent—more needs to be done—and we will always make sure that we provide the vital leadership necessary to ensure it is taken down.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asks about the Prime Minister and whether she has spoken to the President. I will simply say that the Prime Minister will always have regular calls with the President. She has been explicit in criticising this tweet, however, and I know that she will always call it out where she sees it, which is what she has done here.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The retweet has been condemned. We can concentrate on the wrong done by the original tweet. Can we ask the Home Secretary if we can do right by identifying, isolating, putting down and putting out the intended community, religious and ethnic strains?

[Amber Rudd]

It is essential that we have a fair approach to all types of extremism, and with a view to that we always make sure that far-right extremism is treated just as harshly, as it should be, as any sort of radical Islamic terrorism. It is interesting to observe that 25% of referrals to the Channel programme—the bespoke programme that follows Prevent referrals—are in fact on the far-right side.

Policing and Crime Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

The only reason why the amendment is on the amendment paper is that we want the Government to stand by the promises they made. I see the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the Front Bench. I hope she will not walk us any further down this cul de sac, because it will do the victims of crime no favours. It will do politics no favours because it will look as though we have simply caved in to a nasty, tawdry little campaign by the press.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Section 40 should not be introduced. To say to 90% of the local, regional and national press that they have to be forced into a group they do not want to join is bullying of the worst kind. If it were to happen in other countries, the Council of Europe would probably say it was interference in the free media.

William Hone, whose life is described in the book “The Laughter of Triumph”, defied criminal libel law. We should remember that our press basically got its freedom from that moment, when ordinary people on juries refused to convict because they said that the media ought to have the right to lampoon, to be rude and to investigate. I think that people ought to ask the question: what would be the effect of section 40? Would it increase investigative journalism? No, it would not. It would be a good idea if those backing IMPRESS and section 40 gave a list of successful and wrong defamation cases, including of leading politicians who denied they were drunk overseas and various other criminals who later turned out to be guilty of the things they were accused of by the media.

We rely on the media to find out the things few people know about and make them available to all. The whole effect of section 40 will be to chill the opportunity for the media to investigate and report. That is why I believe this House would be wrong to force the Government to bring in section 40. I hope that we do not and I hope that those in favour of it will find other ways to pursue their own aims.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I rise to support, as strongly as I possibly can, the Government’s amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 134. It recognises the force of the arguments laid out in the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and I last year, “Stalking: the Case for Extending the Maximum Sentence”. The report summarised the work of our researchers. Through them, we met victims, stalking charities, academics and police specialists. Everything we learned confirmed our initial instinct that there are a small number of very dangerous stalkers, such as my constituent Raymond Knight who pursued Cheltenham resident and Gloucester GP, Dr Eleanor Aston, to the point of nervous breakdown.

I pay tribute to the Government for accepting our report and its single recommendation of doubling the maximum sentence for stalking from five to 10 years, for amending the appropriate sections of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 on racial and religious aggravated harassment in line with the change to the maximum sentence for stalking, and for outlining in correspondence additional training that will be part of the measures to deal with the mental health issues of serious stalkers. I know the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice have worked closely on this together. I am grateful to both Ministers here today for their action.

I also want to thank Gloucestershire-based Baroness Royall in the Lords for her commitment and contribution, and all those who informed us and shared harrowing experiences, including a constituent and her family. I would like to quote from her 16-year-old daughter, who was so egregiously stalked. She told us that the stalker

“broke into my house one night…all the knives in the knife stand were gone…I was sure I was going to die.”

In this particular case, my constituent and her family prefer to remain anonymous, not least because my constituent has been moved by the police to a safe house far from her home and her own children.

I am extremely grateful to all those who informed us, educated us and motivated us. I suspect the work I have done with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham means that the neighbouring constituencies of Cheltenham and Gloucester have not worked so closely since the creation of the Cheltenham & Gloucester building society —now, alas, long since gone. It is for a good cause that we come together in support of the Government’s change of law.

The Government’s amendment in lieu will give judges the flexibility they need. As Dr Aston has said, victims will be able to sleep more easily when the worst stalkers are sentenced and the stalkers themselves will better understand the seriousness of their crime and receive more help in resolving what is a severe obsession and mental health issue. Of course, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) pointed out, that will not in itself stop stalking, but it shows that victims and judges are being heard, that MPs and ultimately the Government listen and that laws can be changed so that sentences better reflect the harm that a crime can inflict on innocent victims, most of whom, as in the instance that inspired my neighbour and me, are women. Ultimately, justice is only as good as the laws we adapt and the way in which they are implemented. In that context, I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, who made stalking a crime on the statute book when she was Home Secretary, and to the current Home Secretary, who has introduced protection orders against stalkers.

I will finish by returning to where this campaign started: the judge and the victim in Gloucester Crown court. I would like to thank Dr Ellie Aston for inspiring us, for being strong and for having faith; other victims for opening their hearts and sharing their stories; stalking charities, such as the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the Network for Surviving Stalking, Protection Against Stalking and Paladin; and the Hollie Gazzard Trust, the police and the University of Gloucestershire, which happens to be a leader in research in this sad area. This part of the journey for justice for victims of stalking is now close to over. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley has reminded us that there will always be other issues to be raised and resolved, but today’s amendment in lieu deserves everyone’s support.

Operation Midland: Henriques Report

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Brandon Lewis]

I will come in a second to how the police should be dealing with those issues and going about their investigations, but, in terms of something happening whereby a member of the force sees something is wrong, in the first instance we should have a police service in which any member within it has the ability and confidence to come forward to the hierarchy of that service with a complaint and an outline of where things are going wrong. However, going beyond that and realising that we live in the real world and that in some hierarchical organisations, no matter how much we want it to be different, people feel that they cannot do that, in the Policing and Crime Bill that is going through Parliament we are giving more power to the Independent Police Complaints Commission so that it can take things up directly to give better protection to whistleblowers.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and then deal with both issues.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The Minister is helping the debate, but may I pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon)? Rather than having to go to the extreme of whistleblowing and making a formal complaint, why cannot someone say to their leading officer, “What on earth are we doing? Who told you to do this? Why are we doing it? Explain it.” I can do that with my Whips. Why cannot they do that with their inspectors?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sure that the members of the Government Whips Office will be delighted to hear that my hon. Friend feels rightly confident in having that conversation with them. He is right; that is exactly what should happen. However, through the Policing and Crime Bill we are trying to recognise that from time to time, as much as I wish it were not the case, there may be an officer who feels for whatever reason that they cannot go down that route and effectively act as a whistleblower. I will come on to how that should be handled going forward in more detail in just a few moments.

I will turn to some of the specific issues raised during the debate, but hon. Members will be aware that I cannot comment in detail on some of the specifics of Operation Midland, or indeed on individual cases associated with it. It is inappropriate for the Government to comment on operational matters such as those. Additionally, I am sure hon. Members are aware that action is being taken by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which I will outline, as a result of some of the failings identified in the review.

Five Metropolitan Police Service officers, ranging from a detective sergeant through to a deputy assistant commissioner, have been referred to the IPCC. Indeed, the individual who originally made the allegations that Operation Midland focused on is also being investigated by an outside force for attempting to pervert the course of justice. To that end, I hope the House appreciates that I am constrained by various ongoing proceedings, but I am happy to continue and to outline some further wide-ranging points.

On the publication of the report, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot referred in his opening remarks, I believe that there should be a presumption in favour of transparency in a situation like this. It is to the commissioner’s credit that he commissioned this report, and I will discuss his plans for publishing it when I see him next week. There is a balance to be found between considering any legal implications of sensitive and confidential material in the report and publishing that material, which is an issue I know the commissioner has to look at. I will discuss that with him next week. In the first instance, we and the Metropolitan police should look to be as transparent as possible.

I understand the views of Sir Richard Henriques and Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe on whether the police should “believe” all victims. I cannot be clearer on the matter than by reiterating the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was then the Home Secretary. She said that the police should focus on the credibility of the allegation, rather than on the credibility of the witness or victim. That has to be right, but as was said earlier, it works both ways in terms of how the police deal with these issues.

The position of the National Police Chiefs Council—I spoke to Simon Bailey about this earlier today—is that officers and staff must approach any investigation without fear or favour, and must go where the evidence takes them. I understand that Simon Bailey clearly made the point to Sir Richard Henriques, as he was putting together his report that outlined how many claimants’ allegations tend to be baseless, that once the victim has come forward, that case and its investigation must be undertaken without fear or favour to get to the bottom of whether that allegation is correct. If it is, it should quite rightly be followed through to its finality, which the police are required to do by the code of practice of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.

The evidence of the victim is just one part of an investigation; “believing” victims, or even referring to them as such at the point of disclosure when recording the crime, as opposed to complainants, should not and must not interfere with that. However, we need a system under which people who believe they are a victim feel confident and free enough to come forward in the first place. I am sure we all wish to see that continue. As with the rest of Sir Richard’s recommendations, I know that the Metropolitan police, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs Council are looking closely and carefully at that, as they must, in order to respond fully.