Licensing Hours Extensions Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and I thank the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) for bringing the Bill before us today. It is great to hear about her cocktail making, too.

There are not many things that the British public find more enjoyable than going to the pub and having a pint. Our pubs are a vital part of the local economy and community. They bring so many people together. That is especially the case when it comes to celebrating big special occasions in our nation, most notably His Majesty’s coronation last May and the late Queen’s platinum jubilee, as well as the Euro 2020 final. On all such occasions, the Secretary of State uses powers under the Licensing Act 2003 to make an order for the relaxation of licensing hours so that pubs can stay open longer. However, it makes no sense at all that, for that to be possible under the current unamended Act, the order has to be approved by this House and the other place, and that the Home Secretary must also consult those they deem appropriate. The most recent consultation had a very low response rate, which does not match the high proportion of the British public who back changes to licensing hours.

There are sometimes concerns that an extension to licensing hours can lead to a rise in disorder, but there is little or no evidence to support that. It seems only right that we should have the ability to celebrate these important occasions in our pubs for longer than would normally be permitted, and it is the perfect way to express our pride in our country and celebrate all the special occasions with our communities. We are a patriotic nation, and we should be proud to mark these achievements together.

Our time in this place is valuable and important. By passing this Bill we will be removing what has become an administrative procedure of approving the measure under the current Act. Instead we will be able to pass the order more quickly, reducing the amount of parliamentary time currently required and responding to events in a much more effective manner. Here’s to hoping we are soon able to celebrate more football finals so that we can put this new procedure to the test.

I believe the Bill does include appropriate safeguards, with the ability retained for any Member of this House to request a consultation if they so desire. The Bill also maintains the need for specific dates and times for extensions of the hours to be specified so it does not give the green light to this happening on an increased basis; it simply means that when an appropriate time comes, we are able to make it easier to extend licensing hours.

I know I speak for many colleagues across the House when I say that I have such great memories of times spent with others in pubs across my constituency and the wider region. As a member of the all-party group on beer, I am never shy of saying yes to a drink and supporting our fabulous breweries up and down the country. This Bill has many benefits, including cutting bureaucracy and making it easier for the nation to celebrate great successes. I thank the hon. Member for South Shields once again for bringing this Bill before the House today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call Feryal Clark on the Opposition Front Bench.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

No, I cannot give way; I simply do not have time.

Constitutional principles compete in creative tension. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important of them, but there are others that are fundamental and one of them is access to a court in extreme cases. That is what this Bill preserves. I say to my right hon. Friends that I understand their frustration and their deep, intense dissatisfaction with the current situation; I share it. I think that there is tightening that we could do, particularly on rule 39. But on the preservation of the right to go to court in an extreme case, I say that is part of the British constitution that our fathers and our party have supported, and for which they have fought, for generations, and it would be wrong of us to compromise on that—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he is fully aware that we have to stick to the time limit. After Sir George Howarth, whom I shall call next, I am afraid that, given the number of hon. Members who wish to participate, I shall have to reduce the time limit to six minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I am glad that the debate has provided an opportunity for former immigration Ministers to come together for some therapy and to share a little experience about the principles at the heart of the Bill. I served as immigration Minister for nearly two and a half years—in fact, I think that I am the longest-serving former immigration Minister still in the House—so I know a little about what it takes to deliver an immigration system, and I have sympathy with some, albeit not many, of the comments that I have heard from the Government Benches this afternoon.

I will say three quick things about deterrence, international agreements and staying true to our values in these debates. I was the Minister who introduced the UK Border Agency. I brought UKvisas from the Foreign Office and customs from the Treasury into the Home Office to create a £2 billion agency with a simple principle at its core: that border security in the 21st century cannot simply be about defending the border at the shores of our country. In this day and age, one has to operate a triple border. We have to export the border as far away from these shores as possible; we need to have a strong border at those shores; and then we need to have strong in-country enforcement. The only way in which we can get that system to work, and to work effectively, is to fund it.

Global migration pressures are growing sharply. As the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Sir Conor Burns) rightly flagged, 184 million people globally now live outside the borders of their birth, and there are 37 million refugees. Those migration pressures have been growing exponentially since the fall of the Berlin wall, and will continue to grow exponentially in the years to come, not least as the ravages of extreme weather drive more and more people in fragile, conflict and violent countries into poverty. People will always go that extra mile to seek a new life abroad. If we are to have strong borders for this country, yes we must have deterrence, but the deterrence is the speed of justice. It is not the prospect of overriding domestic laws and shipping people off to some remote deportation centre. That is why Home Office officials are right to say that the Bill and its objectives provide very little deterrence, because the Bill does not accelerate the process of rendering a decision on a person’s case and, if they have no basis to be in this country, removing them very rapidly.

Under the administration that I ran, we knew that we had to transform the speed of deportation, which is why we moved heaven and earth to ensure that one person who had no right to be here was removed every eight minutes. That was the kind of pace that was needed to send the very clear message that, if a person is found to have no right to be here, they will be removed very quickly. That is the most effective form of deterrence. The House has to confront the reality. Given a choice on how to spend £400 million of taxpayers’ money, do we spend it on building a remote processing centre in a far-away place, which our own officials tell us is will have no deterrent effect whatsoever, or do we invest it in creating a system that takes decisions quickly and removes people quickly if they have no right to be here?

The first thing one learns as an immigration Minister is that we cannot remove people unless we have agreements with other countries to take them. This is not a country that just drops people out of the back of aeroplanes if they have no right to be here: we have to get them new travel documents, and to have other countries that agree to take them. Frankly, the most important countries with which we need those kinds of agreements are our closest neighbours in Europe, so if we are about to destroy—wipe out and consign to history—decades’ worth of human rights agreements with our closest neighbours, how easy do we really think it will be to get return agreements of any type with those European countries? It is going to get harder and harder, because we will be seen not as good partners, but bad partners. That will not help us to get in place the kinds of returns agreements we are going to need if we are to keep our border and immigration system working well in the 21st century.

My final point is about the Human Rights Act. It is a terrible sight to see the party of Churchill depart so quickly from one of Churchill’s proudest legacies. The European convention on human rights and the Council of Europe were not ideas that were dreamed up out of thin air. They were ideas led, promulgated and delivered by Winston Churchill. That vision—his vision—of a great charter to bring peace to a war-divided continent was based on our experience of protection against torture and against unfair imprisonment and protection of life. Those are ideas that we in this country pioneered, from Magna Carta through the Bill of Rights to the European convention on human rights. The idea that the Conservative party will now lead us in departing from that tradition is a very sorry state of affairs. We in this country are the pioneers of human rights—we celebrated that anniversary with the United Nations at the weekend. It is something we should hold dear.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I call David Jones. [Interruption.] David Jones?

Criminal Justice Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 28th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham).

This is an important Bill that highlights the Government’s commitment to improving our justice system and making our communities safer. I would like to focus the majority of my remarks on one aspect of the Bill that I am pleased to see has received so much attention, which is antisocial behaviour. Members across the House might well represent different parties or political beliefs, but I am confident that I can safely say that we will all have received complaints from our constituents about antisocial behaviour in one form or another. Although it is formally considered to be low-level criminality, the reality is that, left unchecked, antisocial behaviour causes frustration and misery to many, many law-abiding citizens; it is undoubtedly the area of criminal behaviour about which I receive the greatest amount of correspondence. I therefore particularly welcome clauses 65 to 71, which extend the maximum period of certain directions, reduce the minimum age for community protection notices and allow for the closure of premises by registered social housing providers. I am confident that those provisions will all bring tangible benefits to my constituents and those of hon. Members across the House.

I am also glad to see the proposals for reviews of antisocial behaviour by the local policing body, which I know are supported by the excellent police and crime commissioner for Thames Valley, Matt Barber. It can often be difficult to know where exactly responsibility lies for tackling antisocial behaviour—whether it is with the local authority or the local police force, or whether a particular act might straddle the responsibilities of both—as I highlighted in Home Office questions in May. Proposed new section 104A in clause 71 provides the opportunity to make real progress in resolving such difficulties, and as the PCC for Thames Valley, Mr Barber, told me, it should provide more power to enact change and really stand up for residents.

Tackling antisocial behaviour does not mean always acting after the event, though. Indeed, one of the most effective crime-fighting tools is to prevent crimes from being committed in the first place and to divert those at risk of offending to more meaningful pursuits. In my constituency of Aylesbury, we have some excellent local initiatives to provide activities for young people to help prevent them from becoming involved in criminality. I saw that for myself just last Friday, when I spent the afternoon with the Aylesbury neighbourhood community policing team, led by Sergeant Clare Farrow. Two of her PCSOs, Lee Abrahams and Rachel Matthews, joined me at Southcourt baptist church in Aylesbury, where they help to run a weekly boxing club alongside the pastors and other members of the local community. The club has 100 young people on its books, and engages boys and girls from all parts of Aylesbury’s very diverse community. For some children it has helped to build confidence, for others it has brought resolution between bullies and victims, and for all it has provided a constructive activity, keeping young people off the streets and away from the temptation to become involved in criminal behaviour.

So dedicated are PCSOs Lee and Rachel that they even give up their own time to go and help at the club when they are not on duty, and this service has rightly won them and their colleagues the community policing award for Thames Valley in the category of problem solving. It is problem solving that is key to successful neighbourhood policing, which needs special skills and talent. The social enterprise Police Now recruits officers specifically for that type of policing; I was pleased to meet one of its undoubted success stories, PC Elliott Jones, who has been working in Aylesbury for the past year. Spending just a few hours with that neighbourhood team was genuinely inspiring, and I thank all the neighbourhood teams in my constituency for their superb work.

Mindful of the time, I would like to touch briefly on a couple of the other measures outlined in the Bill, given my previous experience as a magistrate and at His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris)—who I am absolutely delighted to see on the Front Bench, having served with her on the Justice Committee—can help to provide a little more detail on these measures, either now or at a later date.

I absolutely recognise the reasons for the Government’s introduction in clause 22 of powers to compel attendance at a sentencing hearing. I entirely understand the anguish that has been caused to victims of crime when the perpetrator of the offence has simply refused to return to the dock, demonstrating, frankly, utter disdain for the harm that they have caused. But I am pleased that the power to produce the offender in court remains at the discretion of the judge, because it is the judge who will be best placed to decide on the individual circumstances of a case. I would be keen to hear more from the Minister about how that might operate in practice, particularly if an offender refused to leave prison to go to court in the first place. I am aware of cases where forcing somebody to leave his cell and get on to the van would have taken a very considerable number of prison officers. While one can reasonably say that that prisoner should be forced to hear his sentence and face justice in person, the reality is that the prison officers involved are taken away from their usual duties and responsibilities. That could—indeed, likely would—impact the normal regime of the prison, which in turn would prevent other prisoners from engaging in the work, education and training that can reduce their chances of reoffending. It is important that we get the balance right, and I am keen to hear how we will make sure that we do so.

Turning to the transfer of prisoners overseas, I am pleased that clause 28 makes provision for His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons to inspect overseas prisons. However, as a former member of the independent monitoring board at HMP/YOI Feltham, I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister outlined how she envisages conditions being monitored on an ongoing basis. The role of IMBs is not necessarily as well known as it should be, perhaps even in this House, but to quote the IMB website,

“IMB members are the eyes and ears of the public, appointed by ministers to perform a vital task: independent monitoring of prisons and immigration detention. They report on whether the individuals held there are being treated fairly and humanely and whether prisoners are being given the support they need to turn their lives around. This can make a huge difference to the lives of those held within these facilities.”

A critical element of that role is that IMB members can turn up at any time, unannounced, and go to any part of the prison they wish with their own set of keys. I would be grateful if the Minister set out what equivalent provision will exist for overseas prisons.

There is much else in this Bill that is important, including measures to respond to changing technology used by criminals, such as 3D printers. As someone whose own car was stolen by thieves accessing the vehicle by intercepting the signal from an electronic key, I particularly welcome clause 3. However, I do not wish to detain the House any further: I conclude simply by welcoming the Bill, and the many ways in which its provisions will make the people of my Aylesbury constituency safer and more secure.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to wind up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Even the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has to understand that the Minister is not giving way.

[Laura Farris]

My time is limited and I apologise for that.

[Yvette Cooper]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister will know that the time is not limited. We do have time and she has named me. I do understand that she has the right not to take an intervention but she will also know that, having named me, as a courtesy to the House, she would normally do so.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is not strictly a point of order for the Chair. The right hon. Lady understands the procedures extremely well.

[Laura Farris]

The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said that this Government have failed in their duty to keep citizens safe. It is regrettable that His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary, Andy Cooke, takes a different view. He has said:

“England and Wales are arguably safer than they have ever been.”

In the limited time I have available, I will address some of the points that came up today. I will respond in writing to those whose speeches I cannot address. Under this Bill, we are taking the fight to serious organised criminals, cutting off their capacity to churn out new firearms, mass-produce illegal drugs and perpetrate fraud with devices using multiple SIM cards. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) elegantly put it, we are designing crime out. We are cracking down on some of the most pernicious harms, which are often hidden from view. We are developing recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and we are developing the package of measures announced by the Prime Minister in April by creating an obligation in law to treat grooming as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on the name change measure. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), who introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on that issue. I will just pick up on the point about mandatory reporting, which the House will know was the subject of a principal finding and recommendation of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham agrees that the measure is a good step forward.

I will briefly address two other issues. Making murder at the end of a relationship an aggravating factor, recognising that the moment of maximum danger for many victims is when they tell him finally that they are leaving, is not the only thing we are doing in that space. Yesterday, the Ministry of Justice announced a consultation on whether coercive and controlling behaviour or the use of a knife or weapon that is already on the scene should become aggravating features in any murder case. I pay tribute to Carole Gould and Julie Devey for their campaign on that.

Finally, I will address the point that was raised about whether the measures we are taking adequately answer the findings of Baroness Casey in her report into misconduct in the Metropolitan police and our handling of it. The measures in the Bill are not the only ones we are taking. We are also acting to ensure that any officer who cannot hold appropriate vetting clearance can be removed from office and that a finding of gross misconduct will automatically result in summary dismissal, and we are giving chief constables the right of appeal following a misconduct hearing if the conclusion is that one of their subordinates has not been subject to an adequate sanction.

The depth and breadth of this debate highlights the need to stay ahead of criminal ingenuity through enhanced supervision, interception and disruption, and by cutting criminals off from the tools of their trade. We are developing legal principles that find their roots in the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Online Safety Act 2023. We are cracking down on crime at every level. From antisocial behaviour all the way to serious organised crime, it blights our communities and targets the most vulnerable. I therefore commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Criminal Justice Bill (Programme)

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

That the following provisions shall apply to the Criminal Justice Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 30 January 2024.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

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

(6) Standing Order No.83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Scott Mann.)

Question agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a Minister of the Crown, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Scott Mann.)

Question agreed to.

Points of Order

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During Justice questions, I sought to ask a question about the comments reported to have been made recently by a district judge in Walsall magistrates court. While I do not wish to question the authority of Mr Speaker, it is my understanding that the judge in question was not one of those covered by the categories described in paragraph 21.23 of “Erskine May”. Can you advise me, therefore, on how I can receive a reply to my question?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. Mr Speaker has, I understand, reviewed the question and is content for it to be answered.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his perfectly proper question, and I want to reassure him that we have listened to it and the Lord Chancellor will be writing to him in due course.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has recently been announced that owing to its perilous financial position, Derbyshire County Council has asked the Department for Transport to pause its plans for the Staveley regeneration route bypass. That would mean that £140 million of Government money would not be available to us in Chesterfield for a much needed bypass because of the financial problems of Derbyshire County Council. Obviously the decision was not made by the Department for Transport, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I wonder whether you have been notified of any plans for a statement to be made in the House about the proposed change. If not, how we can ensure that the council and the Department work together to ensure that this important route still goes ahead?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that that is not a matter for the Chair, but I can say that I have received no indication of any statement to be made this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman’s point is a matter of record, it has been heard, and it will be for those on the Front Bench to decide whether and how they wish to respond.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Before we proceed, I must now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023. The Ayes were 434 and the Noes were 10, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), and I agree entirely with what he said. Many people in this House have for some time been calling for the proscription of the IRGC. I have constituents who are also concerned about the reach of the IRGC and are scared for their own safety, even in this country. It would be useful if the Home Secretary addressed the delay in the proscription in her summing up.

Wagner Group are an appalling organisation. The strength of the atrocities that that murderous organisation have been carrying out has been well documented and well known for years at the highest levels of the British Government. The explanatory memorandum to the order sets out clearly the group’s activities, as a proxy military force, on behalf of the Russian state. It states:

“Founded in 2014, Wagner Group has operated in a range of theatres, including Ukraine, Syria, the Central African Republic, Sudan, Libya, Mozambique, and Mali…in pursuit of Russia’s foreign policy objectives and the objectives of host Governments who have contracted Wagner’s services.”

So why has it taken until 2023, a hot war on European soil and a co-ordinated plane crash killing the group’s leader for this order to come before the House? That is quite astonishing. A catalogue of chaos and destruction has come before today, and as much as we support the measure, it feels to me and many others that the Government have taken far too long to raise the designation.

We in the SNP are disgusted that in October 2021, before Putin’s invasion, the Treasury—then under the control of the now Prime Minister—allowed Yevgeny Prigozhin to circumvent sanctions and launch a targeted attack on a British journalist. We very much want to see action against Wagner Group and all those associated with them—that is a significant point.

In the press release accompanying this announcement, the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), said:

“Proscribing Wagner sends a clear message that the UK will not tolerate Russia’s proxies and their barbaric actions in Ukraine, and condemns Wagner’s campaign of corruption and bloodshed on the African continent, which has been repeatedly linked to human rights violations.”

That is all fine and well, but why was this not done sooner? I would like answers from the Home Secretary on that. Acting sooner may have stemmed some of that bloodshed and some of what has happened, and may have sent a clearer message more widely at a much earlier stage. If the organisation was indeed founded in 2014, that means that we have now been waiting nine years for this measure, and a lot of destruction has passed since.

Designating Wagner Group for proscription is a response to repeated requests from Ukraine’s President Zelensky, who has called for the group to be treated as a terrorist organisation. Can the Home Secretary tell us when he first made that request of the Government, and what response has been given to him? Clearly, we support President Zelensky and want him to succeed in his endeavours, but it would be useful to know the timeline and when the Government responded to that request.

On the wider situation, organisations that work for Wagner Group depend on the flow of funds that often wash up through bank accounts in the United Kingdom. We know about the UK’s reputation as a hub for laundering dirty money. Prior to this debate, the House dealt with the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which could do more still to ensure that we know who owns and benefits from various types of financial structures. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that that legislation will go far enough to prevent the sons, daughters, relatives and associates of Wagner Group members from moving money through accounts here in the UK? We should do everything we can, in light of Prigozhin’s actions to evade UK sanctions, to shut down Wagner Group wherever they might sprout up.

The Foreign Affairs Committee has branded the UK Government’s efforts to deter Wagner Group “underwhelming in the extreme” and recommends that the Conservative party revive at the earliest opportunity the 2019 manifesto commitment to spending 0.7% of the UK’s gross national income on official development assistance. Russia, and China to an extent, are exploiting and seeking to put their influence into the gap left by UK development assistance. As we pull back from that influence that we have had in the world, we do not want countries to be turning to states such as Russia, and to groups such as Wagner that work on their behalf. Will the Home Secretary comment on what more can be done to ensure that we counter such nefarious influence? Once states go down that road, it can be very difficult to come back, and we know from countries in Africa that the result of that will also end up on the Home Secretary’s desk in the form of people seeking asylum in this country, fleeing from wars that we could have done more to prevent had we clamped down and had we provided aid at a different stage. All of this is interconnected, and all of it comes through her Department.

The Foreign Affairs Committee has also commented that it has received no evidence of any serious effort by the UK Government to track Wagner Network’s activities in countries other than Ukraine. That is perhaps not directly within the Home Secretary’s remit, but could she comment a wee bit further on the tracking of the Wagner Group’s activities—on how closely the UK state is monitoring those activities to ensure we understand where they are now and, crucially, where they might be going next? They appear to have a very nimble organisation that can change and evolve, so we need to be mindful that although Prigozhin is gone, there are plenty of people to replace him within that organisation. What they are doing is clearly lucrative, so we need to have that intelligence and analysis of their network to make sure we are keeping a close eye on what happens next, and what more the UK state can do to intervene in it.

Can the Home Secretary talk a bit more about the further sanctions on civilian enablers and frontmen, which I touched on a little when we were debating the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill? There are people in this country, I am certain, who are facilitating a lot of the movement of finance. We have the opportunity to go further than is proposed in the order to look at those frontmen and those who give the organisation its corporate face. Will the UK Government have a regular mechanism for co-ordinating with allies about sanctions—prioritising travel bans, for example—to make sure that those actors involved in Wagner do not get to move around? Is the Magnitsky sanctions list also co-ordinated with today’s action, and will more sanctions on that list follow? I know that it is not the done thing to say who is going to be sanctioned, but it would be good to get some reassurance that that list is continually under review.

Finally, it would also be useful to know what further mechanisms there are for oversight in this House. We need to be keeping a closer eye on this issue: it should not have taken nine years to get to where we are today. What more will be done to make sure that this is an effective mechanism—that we are keeping a very close eye on this organisation and its operatives, and doing everything we can as a good ally to Ukraine to make sure that all our actions are co-ordinated, working with other allies to make sure everything that can possibly be done to shut down this evil terrorist organisation is done, and done quickly?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your advice. Recently, Cumberland Council, which incidentally happens to be Labour-led, wrote to me about the impact of the EU’s nutrient neutrality rules on house building in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson). As well as a number of new businesses and business expansions being held up, I am told that more than 2,500 new homes that have gone through the planning process and are awaiting granted permission have been blocked, and a further 1,450 homes as part of St Cuthbert’s garden village have been blocked. At least one national house builder has effectively withdrawn from the region. The forecasted turnover reduction runs into millions of pounds, with the inevitable impact on local jobs and the supply chain.

The council also says that the impact of the small amount of mitigation that may be found for some developments will be a reduction in section 106 agreements for affordable housing. Hundreds of jobs in my constituency are at risk. The Government found a solution and we have now found out that the Opposition plan to block it, after previously signalling agreement. I wonder if a Minister might signal their intention to come to the House to set out the impact that the flip-flopping of His Majesty’s Opposition might have on constituencies such as Workington.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

The hon. Gentleman has placed his view on the record, and it has been heard by Ministers. He will understand it is not a matter for the Chair, but I am quite sure that Members on both Front Benches will have heard what he has had to say and will treat the matter with the respect that it deserves.

Illegal Migration Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2023 Commons Chamber

Lords amendment 103 disagreed to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Seconds out, round 17.

After Clause 60

Ten-year strategy on refugees and human‘ trafficking

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 104.—(Robert Jenrick.)

Public Order Act 2023

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I do not propose to put a time limit on speeches, but I ask hon. Members to recognise that this is an Opposition day debate. It is up to Opposition Members to decide who speaks and for how long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hunt]

I will not be giving way—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is entirely within his right not to give way, but I did suggest a self-denying ordinance on the length of speeches, so I trust he will be bringing his remarks to a conclusion.

[Tom Hunt]

I will be concluding my speech. I have further points that I would like to make. I will take an intervention at a time of my own choosing.

Ultimately, there is a tension between the Labour party looking to appeal to voters north of the border, who may well sympathise with extremely reckless protests, and those south of the border. I suspect that Labour Members know deep down that the majority of the public—

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hunt]

You are on the side of reckless protesters who, time and again, want to grind our settlements to a halt. It is absolutely clear. I will draw my remarks to a close, but will watch with interest the dynamic and interplay between the Labour party and the SNP. We will continue to see the Labour party evolve over the coming weeks.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I should have said earlier that I intend to start to call the Front Benchers at twenty to 7. That should give Members an indication of how long they have.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly]

I know that you want to hear more of this speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, so let us get back to the proposal before this Parliament from a party that the legislation essentially does not affect. It seems odd that a party that has ruined the education system in Scotland and done various other such things does not want to talk about some of those fundamental issues for their constituents, but wants to talk about things that affect English constituents. I am glad in one sense, because it is at least an acceptance from SNP Members that we are one country—one United Kingdom—and that these matters should be important to us all. The Unionist is coming out in them all.

We are talking here about repeal. We are using up time in this place to debate the repeal of an Act that has been in place for, what, two or three weeks? By any measure of ludicrous debates, that is stretching it to the limit. What are we talking about within the Act that is so appalling, Mr Gale?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. It is a matter of relatively small consequence to me, but although Mr Gale is the name I was born with, for the purposes of this debate I am Mr Deputy Speaker.

[James Daly]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I wonder whether our constituents think that going equipped to lock on—with apparatus to lock oneself to a motorway or something else to cause untold disruption —is an outrageous act. Well, of course they do. They think that that should be on the statute book, and that the police should have powers to enforce and take action against people who behave in that way.

Section 6 of the Act covers offences regarding the obstruction of major transport infrastructure. Well, let us go out and punt for anybody, anywhere who thinks that it is wrong to put in place and give police extra powers to ensure that people are not causing obstructions and putting themselves and other members of the public in harm’s way. Who on earth could object to that? Section 7 of the Act is on interference with national infrastructure. What does the right to peaceful protest have to do with someone sticking themselves to the middle of a motorway or any other transport infrastructure? It is not about that.

The Government should be immensely proud of this legislation, because not only does it respond to public concern, but it is a common-sense measure to address behaviours that were causing grave concern to people in my constituency and throughout the country. We can never be in a position where we allow the outrage of the left to overcome the rights of our fellow citizens in this country to get on with their lives in a peaceful and appropriate way. This is a good piece of legislation. There is not one shred of evidence to back up what those on the Opposition Benches are saying. Most importantly, the Act preserves the right to peaceful protest, and anybody who says anything to the contrary is clearly incorrect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but he is giving the impression that north of the border in Scotland, no protester is ever arrested, convicted, or indeed put in prison. However, over the past five or six years, there have been numerous occasions when protesters have been arrested, convicted and imprisoned in Scotland, and indeed when protesters have had restrictions placed on their ability to repeat their protest. I was reading in the paper about a young lady in Glasgow who was restricted from continuing with her protest while on bail, so obviously the Scottish Government are drawing a line somewhere between these two competing rights. That is all the British Government are seeking to do in England and Wales.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Before the hon. Gentleman replies, I ask him to keep a watchful eye on the clock.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope to speak for less time than the hon. Member for Bury North.

I take the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). Actually, I am on record as having stood up for the people who were arrested at demonstrations last year in my own city of Edinburgh, and I thought Police Scotland did overstep the mark on that occasion. As a consequence, no charges materialised, and the police have more or less accepted that, but they did not have the Public Order Act to turbocharge the possibility of that overreach and overstep. That is why I am concerned about the Act and believe it should be repealed.

One understands that there has been a debate happening inside the right of British politics in recent decades. It is distressing but understandable that legislation such as this Act has gone on the statute book because an argument inside the Conservative party has been won by those of a more populist and authoritarian persuasion, and lost by those for whom human rights is a primary concern. That saddens me, and I know there are Government Members who are also concerned about it, but it is perhaps what one might expect from a party of the right.

What absolutely astonishes me is the reaction of His Majesty’s Opposition in this debate. I do not buy the argument that they do not want to support this motion because they think it is a stunt. One could—and they do—accuse us of that all the time. The truth is that the Labour party is embarrassed to support the repeal of this legislation, and that is a terrible thing to have happened. A once great political party that was born out of resistance and protest, and whose members’ views were framed by campaigning against social injustice, is now prepared to turn a blind eye and accept the constraints being put on our right to protest by this Act. It really is sad. I have friends on the Opposition Benches who are disquieted by that, and I hope very much that they will develop the confidence and the ability to bring their leadership into check.

It does no service to British democracy and no service to the British people when the Labour party—the party of opposition to this Conservative Government—sits on its hands and will not support the repeal of this most oppressive piece of legislation, which is taking away the rights and freedoms that have underpinned society in Scotland and England for centuries.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I still intend to call the Front Benchers at 6.40 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. A few moments ago, the Minister claimed that the former Justice Secretary, Keith Brown MSP, had welcomed the Public Order Act. Well, I have just spoken to the former Justice Secretary, who is a much-loved and well-respected member of the Scottish National party, contrary to the nonsense uttered by the Minister.

Keith Brown tells me that, although the SNP supported a little element of the Act, he, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament otherwise opposed the Act in its entirety. Will the Minister correct the record?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

The hon. Lady will appreciate that all Members are responsible for their own statements, and that that is not a matter for the Chair. She has, however, placed her point on the record.

Illegal Migration Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope that this is an unintended consequence of the Government’s amendment, but I fear, given that they tabled it, that they knew all too well what they were doing with this amendment, because they just want people to leave the UK. As he says, assuming that where somebody is identified they are going to have to leave the UK means that they are less likely to give evidence, and we will not catch and prosecute so many traffickers and slave drivers. Sadly, all too often those individuals will return to a country where they will be straight into the arms of the traffickers and slave drivers again.

The purpose of amendment 4 is simple: to ensure that victims who are being exploited, in slavery, here in the UK are able to continue to access the support they need, which will enable them to find a new life here or indeed in their home country. Not everybody who has been trafficked here for slavery wants to stay in the UK. Many of them want to return home, but they need to be given the support that enables that to be possible.

Amendment 4, if accepted, would ensure that it would be more likely that the criminals were caught. This Bill says, “If you are a victim of modern slavery who came here illegally, we will detain and deport you, because your slavery is secondary to your immigration status.” It has always been important to separate modern slavery from immigration status. Modern slavery is not a migration issue, not least because more than half of those referred to the national referral mechanism here in the UK for modern slavery are UK citizens here in the UK.

Modern slavery is the greatest human rights issue of our time. The approach in this Bill will have several ramifications. It will consign victims to remaining in slavery. The Government will be ensuring that more people will stay enslaved and in exploitation as a result of this Bill, because it will give the slave drivers and traffickers another weapon to hold people in that slavery and exploitation. It will be easy to say to them, “Don’t even think about trying to escape from the misery of your life, from the suffering we are subjecting you to, because all that the UK Government will do is send you away, probably to Rwanda.” The Modern Slavery Act gave hope to victims, but this Bill removes that hope. I genuinely believe that if enacted as it is currently proposed, it will leave more people—more men, women and children—in slavery in the UK.

As I have said, another impact of the Bill will be fewer prosecutions and fewer criminals being caught and put behind bars. I apologise to the Minister for bouncing him with the Greater Manchester Police evidence that I cited earlier, but it is very relevant and he needs to look at it. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 already means that people who are in slavery—the figures on those who get a positive decision from the national referral mechanism show this—are not coming forward because of the evidence requirement now under that Act. That is having a real impact and it means fewer prosecutions of the criminals.

I wish to mention the impact on children, and I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the concerns of the Children’s Commissioner. Other Members of this House, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), have long championed, through the process of this Bill, the issue of children. My concern is particularly about those children who are in slavery in this country and being cruelly exploited, as victims need support.

The Children’s Commissioner has cited the example of Albin, a 16-year-old Albanian national who came to the UK in September via a boat. He was trafficked for gang and drug exploitation. It was clear to the Border Force that he was young and malnourished, and that he had significant learning difficulties. He was provided support, including from the Children’s Commissioner’s Help at Hand team, but the point the commissioner makes is that

“without the NRM decision…he would have not been processed through the immigration/asylum route as quickly and he would have not received the adequate support to meet his needs.”

Upon receiving the positive decision for the NRM, the social care team was able to transfer him to a suitable placement. That 16-year-old would otherwise have potentially been detained and deported by the Government.

It is important that we consider the impact on children who are victims of slavery. I put the arguments earlier about making it harder to prosecute the slave drivers, and that covers child victims as well, but there may well be an added element for the traffickers to use to keep children enslaved, by which I mean the situation in Rwanda. UNICEF said:

“In Rwanda, over half of all girls and six out of ten boys experience some form of violence during childhood. Children are usually abused by people they know—parents, neighbours, teachers, romantic partners or friends. Only around 60% of girls in Rwanda who are victims of violence tell someone about it, and the rate is even lower for boys.”

I recognise that that quote relates to children in Rwanda being abused by people known to them, but the environment is hardly conducive to the good care of children.

Amendment 4 would remove the problem by ensuring that those identified as being exploited into slavery here in the UK could still access the support provided under the Modern Slavery Act. We have led the world in providing support for those in slavery by what we have done here in the United Kingdom. The Bill significantly damages the operation of that Act. It is bad for victims, bad for the prosecution of slave drivers and bad for the reputation of the United Kingdom.

I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for saying from the Dispatch Box that he was willing to talk and listen to us to see whether we can find a way through this. I say to him quite simply that the best way to do that is through amendment 4. That is what removes the problem in relation to the victims of modern slavery, so I hope the Government will be willing to look very carefully at that amendment and to listen to what we have said. What we are talking about is not just what we say, but what those who are identifying and dealing with the victims of modern slavery are experiencing day in, day out. They worry that more people will be in slavery as a result of the Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I will now announce the result of the ballot held today for the election of the Chair of the new Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. A total of 384 votes were cast, none of which was invalid. There were two rounds of counting. There were 362 active votes in the final round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 182 votes. Angus Brendan MacNeil was elected Chair with 188 votes. He will take up his post immediately. I congratulate him on his election. The results of the count under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on the internet.

I now call Dame Diana Johnson, after whom I shall have to impose a five-minute limit on speeches.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I thank her for highlighting the evidence that we heard this morning at the Home Affairs Committee on the issue of trafficking and modern slavery, and I again pay tribute to the work that she did on that pioneering piece of legislation in 2015.

I think the right hon. Lady is right that the Government do not fully understand the law in this area of modern slavery and trafficking. I support what she said about amendments 95 and 4. I noted that, at the start of proceedings, the Minister said that it is important that we get the Bill right, and it is absolutely important that we do so. As we enter this final stretch for the House to have the opportunity to debate and amend the Bill,

I wish again to express my concerns about the lack of an impact assessment for the Bill. The impact assessment is now seven weeks late, and it is wholly unacceptable that the House is being forced to pass this very significant legislation with no firm analysis on whether it will work or what the cost will be. According to the Refugee Council, the Bill could cost as much as £9 billion over the next three years.

I again refer to the Home Affairs Committee report on small boat crossings, in which we were very clear about the need for evidence-based policy making. It is regrettable that this Bill is being forced through at breakneck speed with no time for pre-legislative scrutiny. I know the Minister has had to table a lot of Government amendments to deal with issues that perhaps should have been thought through before, and we have heard that he will reconsider issues around modern slavery and trafficking as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Hon. Members will have noticed that we are endeavouring first to call those who have tabled amendments. After that, I or my successor will accommodate as many Members as possible.

[Mrs Elphicke]

I rise to speak to amendment 184, which was tabled in my name and supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and many other right hon. and hon. Friends.

The stop the boats Bill is important to my Dover and Deal constituency because it focuses specifically on the problems of small boat arrivals by dramatically reducing the pull factor that draws people to the United Kingdom—namely, that once people are here, it is very hard to remove them. The Bill cuts through all that. It says, plainly and simply: “If you’ve arrived here illegally, you won’t be allowed to stay.”

I have long said that the small boats crisis will end only when migrants and people smugglers alike know that they will not succeed. Stopping the boats is the right and compassionate thing to do. It will save lives that are being risked in the channel. The Bill and today’s amendments, particularly new schedule 1, will send a clear and unmistakable message to would-be channel migrants: “If you are thinking of breaking into Britain in a small boat, don’t bother. Save your cash and stay safe on land.”

Let me turn to the details of amendment 184. Clause 4, to which the amendment relates, sets out the circumstances in which human rights and other protection cases can be excluded. Put simply, if a person arrives through the small boats route, they will not be allowed to try to prevent their removal through endless legal appeals paid for by the British taxpayer.

The amendment focuses specifically on those who would put our public safety or national security at risk. This approach is in line with the UN refugee convention and the European convention on human rights, which has always allowed countries to protect themselves from those who would cause the most serious risk of harm to them and their countrymen and women.

The amendment would apply whether or not the country of origin can be identified—for example, if someone is undocumented, perhaps because they have eaten their identity papers or thrown their passport in the channel, or, as border officials tell me has shockingly been the case, if someone has taken razor blades to their fingers to damage and destroy their fingerprints to avoid identification.

At the frontline of my constituency in Dover and Deal, this is not a matter of open-borders fervour or pro-migration ideological dogma, as some of the contributions today have suggested; it is a matter that directly affects my constituency and our country’s safety, security and peace of mind. A key reason why the small boats Bill and amendment 184 matter is that when Dover and Deal residents raise matters of concern, the official Opposition do not back them and do not even believe them. When migrants ran amok and broke into a woman’s house, before being apprehended in a bedroom, the leader of the Labour group on Dover District Council went on TV to cast doubt on residents’ accounts, dismissing them as misreportings. He said that we should be “more generous” to illegal channel migrants.

The reality is that Labour’s new clause 15 is a smokescreen for allowing more legal challenge and more taxpayer costs —more potential loopholes to allow those who would wish our country harm to stay here. New clause 15(2) would require a Secretary of State to consider imposing TPIMs on illegal migrants who are suspected of terrorism, if they cannot remove them, but as the Minister has said, the Government are doing that anyway. The Government will always act to protect the country’s national security.

If Opposition Members want to ensure our country’s safety and security, they should back the Government’s “stop the boats” Bill and they should back swift removals. New clause 15 pretends to be tough, but in fact it would result in slower appeals than the fast-track process the Government have set out. In my constituency we see Labour’s true colours: it is an open-borders, pro-immigration party. It does not want to stop the boats. Just like Brexit, so on small boats: Labour cannot be trusted and does not listen.

I thank the Minister for engaging with us on amendment 184. I have had the reassurance that I sought, as have my right hon. and hon. Friends who support the amendment, so we will not press it to a vote today. I look forward to continuing to engage with the Minister to stop the boats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Apsana Begum]

I rise to speak to a range of amendments and new clauses seeking to protect people from the attacks on basic human dignity that are before the House today. I am supporting new clauses in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) about the ongoing human rights breaches that migrants endure, which have been happening for some time, but today I shall focus on how the legislation treats those who are pregnant, because not only will the Bill persecute and imprison people fleeing torture, war and oppression, but it will put the health of some of the most vulnerable of them—pregnant women—and the life of their unborn children at risk. That is why I have tabled new clause 2 seeking to exempt pregnant women and girls from provisions about removals. My new clause 3 seeks to require an independent review of the effect of the provision on pregnant migrants, and my new clause 7 is about a review of the effect of the measures on the health of migrants.

I am also supporting related amendments to prevent an immigration officer’s and the Secretary of State’s detention powers from being used to detain unaccompanied children, families with dependent children, or pregnant women, as tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson).

In order to cut through the dehumanising othering that too often plagues debates on migration—I note the awful nature of the comments made earlier today in response to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) about the dental testing of young migrants, which I find dehumanising and an othering of different communities—I would like to draw the House’s attention to a real-life example to illustrate the human reality of what is being debated today.

Najma Ahmadi and her family fled from the Taliban and made 20 attempts to cross into Greece from Turkey—20 attempts. On two occasions, Najma nearly drowned, once while pregnant with her baby daughter. She finally arrived in the UK last July on a boat, her terrified one-year-old baby girl clutched against her. Najma and her family were entitled to asylum, which was granted last December, but we must not forget those pregnant women escaping persecution who have died seeking refuge. For example, Yohanna, an Eritrean woman thought to be about 20 years old, who gave birth as she drowned alongside many others, when the boat she was travelling on, trying to get to safety, capsized. And there are many other women who remain unnamed.

These women are not criminals, but this Government are proposing today to treat them worse than criminals, despite knowing that such women are in fact victims of foreign policy failures and the simple, indisputable fact that there were no safe routes for them. They are fleeing countries such as Afghanistan, which has barely had a mention today. As I said during the previous stage of the Bill, as of last month, 22 people had been granted asylum through the Afghanistan resettlement scheme. If that figure has changed, I would be more than happy for the Minister to address it in his closing remarks, but that is such a small number—unless of course the Government have changed tack and do not think there are women trying to escape the Taliban in Afghanistan and believe that they do not deserve safe routes through which to escape.

Not only will the Government refuse sanctuary to those who survive these horrors, but clause 11 will enable the Home Secretary to condemn them to indefinite detention. The Bill will therefore see migrant women who should have finally escaped persecution facing pregnancy and birth alone, without adequate medical support and with the fear of potential separation from their baby.

There is a wealth of information and evidence that the imprisonment of any pregnant women is wrong. We know that pregnant women in prison are almost twice as likely to give birth prematurely and are five times more likely to experience a stillbirth. Yet pregnant refugees are to be placed in circumstances worse than the already inhumane situation of pregnant women in UK prisons such as Manston, where there are outbreaks of illness and disease, reports of assaults and drug use by guards, and which last year was estimated to be detaining thousands of people arriving in Britain via small boats, some for as long as 40 days or more. No one should be detained in such places, never mind those who are pregnant.

The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Midwives, and Maternity Action have all raised that healthcare in immigration detention is often very poor. In 2014, some 99 women were locked up in Serco-run Yarl’s Wood detention centre while pregnant, and research by Medical Justice found they often missed antenatal appointments—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. The hon. Lady is out of time. I call David Simmonds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is worth reflecting on the fact that in this week alone the horrifying news about Sudan has reached us and we have seen the horrific circumstances being faced by not only British and dual nationals, but everyone there. While Britain is working hard to evacuate our citizens, we are not talking about safe routes for Sudanese refugees or a homes for Sudan scheme, and there are no dedicated resettlement routes and no numbers confirmed in respect of what countries the UNHCR should be prioritising in trying to help with what the Minister was outlining earlier. Even with Government new clause 8, the best this Bill could offer is a commitment to a report on safe routes, but with no actual, tangible commitments to open new ones. What are people fleeing war and persecution in Sudan, or anywhere else, supposed to do with that? By the time anything comes from this report, it will be too late for them, they will be on their way.

The amendments I cited earlier have been tabled because no serious attempt has been made in this Bill to ensure that vulnerable people are protected. That has been outlined well in the discussion we have had on modern slavery, so I will not add to that. The purpose of the Bill is the complete opposite of providing safe and legal routes for people to claim asylum. At their core, these proposals are not about helping anyone or making anyone safer, and they are not about making our borders safer; they are simply about attacking the rights of refugees, for the sake of electoral expedience and managing unruly Government Back Benchers. At the centre of this is a paradox: how can someone claim asylum if they are not on UK soil and they have to be on UK soil to claim asylum? How can they take a safe and legal route if there is no safe and legal route that works for them or is available to them? How can they claim safety in the first country they get to if that country persecutes them because they are LGBT, or they have a disability or religion—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is out of time. I call Sir William Cash.

[Sir William Cash]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to start by asking a big question: what is this Bill ultimately going to achieve? The European convention on human rights was introduced in the 1950s, and at that time I would have agreed with every word that has been said in respect of its application to the holocaust and to genuine refugees. However, what we have witnessed recently has been the phenomenon of this small boats problem, which does not just affect the UK. It also affects Italy, and Madam Meloni, whom I gather is coming over to see the Prime Minister tomorrow, is certainly going to have something to say about that. The problem is endemic and has to be dealt with.

Public Order Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 24th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I find myself, I am afraid, in agreement with the Opposition spokesperson. I also support the Casey recommendations, based as they were on a horrifying report about the behaviour of the Met over the years. Let us be clear: no Government of any persuasion have managed to get the Met to behave—and not just the Met; other police forces, too—in a manner that is acceptable to the public, bearing in mind that there have been Governments of both orientations since Stephen Lawrence.

The second point I would make very quickly is that when the Home Secretary in 2010—my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), for those who do not remember—limited stop and search, she did not do so out of an excess of liberal sympathy. She did so because, at that point in time, stop and search was being used in such a way that it caused serious race relations problems in several parts of the country. That was because stop and search was largely targeted at stopping violence, and at that point—it may well still be true today—the perpetrators of knife crime and the victims of knife crime mostly came from minority communities. Although minority communities themselves were not happy about the operation of the system, they understood why it was there. That was a different order of magnitude from using suspicionless stop and search to control demonstrations.

Don’t get me wrong: I think that we should have some fairly fierce legislation—which we do have now—for dealing with people who deliberately destroy the lives of the public, or uproot and disrupt the lives of the public. I am a great believer in the right of demonstration, but I do not think it should go beyond a certain level. That is why I support the Lords amendment to put this provision on the face of the Bill.

To respond to the Minister’s question to the Opposition spokeswoman, we should turn the question on its head: why should it not be on the face of the Bill? After all, that would broadcast in clear terms what we want to happen. We want the police to behave in a respectful and careful manner when they use this power. Indeed, I am slightly surprised that the Lords amendments did not also include making sure that video footage from the body cameras was available, including to the lawyers of the people who were stopped and searched after the event, if need be.

I think this is a worthwhile amendment. As has been said, I think it is very much in line with the Casey report, and we as a Government have to set our minds to ensuring that every recommendation of the Casey report is put in place and to returning the Metropolitan police and other police forces to the level of public respect that we wish they had now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I, too, rise to speak in support of the Lords amendments. These are amendments about suspicionless stop and search, and we need to draw a breath and remind ourselves that suspicionless stop and search really is a significant power. It is a hugely invasive, intrusive and arbitrary police tactic that causes incredible inconvenience for those who are impacted, and that is something that has not seemed to register at all with the Government throughout the entire process of discussing clause 11.

From the Casey report, we also know of the hugely significant impact that these powers can have on black and minority ethnic communities in particular, so it is plain wrong to be pressing on when trust has been undermined by a series of horrendous stories, particularly regarding the Metropolitan police, but far from exclusively. Nobody in this Chamber is saying that suspicionless stop and search powers are never, ever appropriate, but there must be serious justifications for them. Of course, there are serious justifications when it comes to terrorism or serious violence, but the powers in the Bill apply in circumstances that do not come remotely close to justifying their use. In some circumstances, we are talking about an inspector having a suspicion that somebody somewhere might commit a public nuisance. That is absolutely no basis for setting up a suspicionless stop and search regime, so this is an appallingly inappropriate expansion of such powers at a time when Casey has called for a reset of practice with regard to them.

As such, we support these Lords amendments. The arguments in favour of them have been set out comprehensively in the last two speeches that we have heard. If anything, the amendments are very limited and do not go anywhere near far enough, but they are just about better than nothing, and they may provide some reassurance for those who are going to be at the sharp end of such searches. We therefore support them and disagree with the Government motion.

Illegal Migration Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Beth Winter]

I fully agree—[Interruption.]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] Thank you. I would like the Committee to behave like that all the time. It is most discourteous for conversations to be taking place on the Back Benches, particularly among people who have not been in the Chamber for much of the debate. Some of us want to hear what Members have to say.

[Beth Winter]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate your intervention.

In conclusion, there is an alternative, as is evident from the number of extremely progressive and positive amendments. We must clear the backlog, expand safe routes, and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), in co-operation with Care4Calais and the Public and Commercial Services Union on safe routes, was excellent. We must be welcoming vulnerable people to what I would describe as a nation of sanctuary.

I will finish by reflecting on the words of the First Minister of Wales. A week or two ago he spoke about,

“the basic belief that, in our brief lives, we owe a duty of care…to our family and friends, but also to strangers”.

He said that that simple belief lies at the heart of

“our ambition to be a nation of sanctuary. To provide a warm welcome to families forced out of their homes…all of those who seek sanctuary from wherever, and however, they may come”

to our shores. Care, compassion, respect, dignity, humanity, inclusivity and kindness—those are the values that I hold dear, and those are the values and principles that we should seek to uphold. This Bill does not do that at all. We must reject it.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. I seek your guidance. The Bill is reaching the closing minutes of Committee stage. Last Thursday, in Business questions, the Leader of the House said in answer to my question as to the whereabouts of the Government’s impact assessment of the Bill:

“I have spoken to the Home Office about the impact assessment; it is quite right that we publish it before Committee stage.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 451.]

As the right hon. Lady has previously asserted her strong support for Parliament to have impact assessments in order for colleagues on all sides to scrutinise any Government properly, and I know her to be a woman of her word, I am baffled. I am sure it could not possibly be that the Government have found the impact to be the £3 billion cost to the taxpayer that the Refugee Council found. Sir Roger, could you tell me of any mechanism I can employ, even now, in these closing minutes, to enable, encourage or merely exhort the Minister to publish the Government’s impact assessments?

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)]

The shadow Leader of the House has been in the House long enough to know that it is the responsibility of the Government, not the Chair, to publish or not publish Government papers. However, she asked me a question and has placed her point on the record. I am about to call the Minister of State to reply, and he has heard what the hon. Lady has said.

[Robert Jenrick]

It has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. I will not detain the Committee by dwelling on the Government amendments as they are all, essentially, technical in nature. I will instead set out to respond to as many of the amendments and new clauses that have been debated as possible. I take issue with those who said that the Government provided insufficient time to debate. I note that both today and yesterday, the debates have concluded almost an hour before the allocated time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I am not going to give way again. [Interruption.] I am not going to give way to the hon. and learned Lady. Let me turn to—[Interruption.] Let me turn—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Twenty-seven Members have taken part in the debate this afternoon, and there are rather more Members present who are speaking but who did not take part in the debate. The 27 who were here, taking part in the debate, have a right to hear what the Minister has to say, and it would be good if they could do it without interruption. That means without interruption from either side of the House.

[Robert Jenrick]

Thank you, Sir Roger. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) does not like the Bill. She is going to vote against the Bill and she does not want to stop the boats. She has tabled a whole raft of amendments with her colleagues, and we all know what the purpose of those amendments really is.

[Joanna Cherry]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. Is it in order for the Minister to so misrepresent my position? I tabled my amendments as the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, not on behalf of the Scottish National party, and the point I wish to make is that he has not answered a single point raised by anyone who spoke from the Opposition Benches. It is a farce—a farce!

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. That is an observation, not a point of order. The hon. and learned Lady is fully aware that Members are responsible for their own remarks on the record. They have to take responsibility for that.

[Robert Jenrick]

Sir Roger, it is an observation but it is also incorrect, because I have already spoken about the many questions around children that have been raised.

Before I wind up my remarks, I want to address the issues regarding modern slavery that have been raised by my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). All of us in Government look forward to engaging with them and learning from their unrivalled expertise and experience in this field as we ensure that the Bill meets the standards that we want it to meet. A number of hon. and right hon. Members said there was no evidential basis for taking action with regard to modern slavery. I do not think that that is fair. Let me just raise a few points of clarification. When the Modern Slavery Act was passed in 2015, the impact assessment envisaged 3,500 referrals a year, but last year there were 17,000 referrals. The most referred nationality in 2022 was citizens of Albania, a safe and developed European country, a NATO ally and, above all, a signatory to the European convention against trafficking.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Before we go any further, I remind Members that we are in Committee. In Committee, Members are entitled to speak more than once. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) is entirely in order in seeking to speak again, and the Committee has until 8.12 pm to complete this debate.

[Alison Thewliss]

Thank you, Sir Roger, for that clarification; I am sure that other hon. Members may also find it of interest.

A Bill would usually go upstairs for Committee stage and be scrutinised line by line. Every one of the more than 150 amendments to this Bill would have been discussed and we would have had the opportunity to vote on them all. We would have scrutinised the Minister in significant detail on each and every amendment, and each would have been properly discussed. He would have had to work to get this Bill through the House if it had gone upstairs to Committee rather than being discussed in this farce of a process today.

It is also important for those watching this at home to understand that no evidence has been taken on this Bill. Usually when we would go upstairs to a Bill Committee, we would be allowed to take evidence from experts in the field. The experts in this field have done their absolute utmost to get that evidence to us, and I am holding in front of me just some of the evidence I have received from organisations, which I have tried to present through the many amendments that I have tabled.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I now do have to call the hon. Lady to order, because she is making a general speech. She is well aware that a series of amendments is under discussion and that we are not having a general debate like on Second Reading. Perhaps she would like to return to the amendments under discussion.

[Alison Thewliss]

Thank you very much, Sir Roger. I would be glad to return to the topics of the Bill.

At the back of the Bill is the schedule, which may be of interest to hon. Members, as it contains a list of 57 countries, including countries from which people are known to be trafficked into sex slavery in this country. The Republic of Albania is the first on the list. We know, because the evidence supports it, that there are people—women—being trafficked to this country to be held in facilities where they are raped repeatedly by men. Those women will now not be able to ask for safety, because if they do, they will be putting themselves at risk of being deported to Rwanda. As we know, traffickers will hold that over women as a threat; this Bill is a traffickers’ charter.

I had a look through the Human Rights Watch profiles of some of the countries on the list of 57 that Ministers deem to be safe countries to which people can be removed, and I had a long conversation with Rainbow Sisters about the difficulties for lesbian and bisexual women being returned to these countries. Men are also mentioned in the list, which reads:

Gambia (in respect of men)…Ghana (in respect of men)…Kenya (in respect of men)…Liberia (in respect of men)…Malawi (in respect of men)…Nigeria (in respect of men).”

Men can be removed to these countries, but Gambia, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritius, Nigeria and Sierra Leone—which are in this list—all outlaw same-sex relations. Ministers are not going to ask when somebody arrives in this country in a dinghy or on a plane—however they arrive—anything about the circumstances of those people. They will quite simply put them on a plane and send them back, if they can. If they cannot, those people will be in limbo in this country forever because there will be no means of removing them.

[Patrick Grady]

I am sure that lots of Members in the House and lots of people watching at home will want my hon. Friend to continue the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill in the time that is available by the order agreed to by the House. She mentions Malawi as an example. I am proud to chair the all-party parliamentary group on Malawi. Is not precisely the point that the individual circumstances of any asylum seeker who comes here need to be assessed? We cannot arbitrarily make decisions about individuals, because we do not know their individual cases. But the clauses in this Bill, and the schedule that she is talking about—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. I know that this measure arouses strong opinions, but we do have a process in this House: we have to stick to the amendments. There are no amendments to the schedule and the hon. Gentleman was not referring, so far as I can see, to any amendment. In the remaining stages of this debate, can we please now confine our arguments to what is on the amendment paper, not to what is not on the amendment paper?

[Alison Thewliss]

Yes; my hon. Friend would be referring to amendment 191—in clause 2, page 2, line 33—which would disapply the section

“where there is a real risk of persecution or serious harm on grounds of sexual orientation”

if a person

“is removed in accordance with this section.”

This is important. We think that people’s individual rights and risks ought to be assessed by the Government, but that is not happening; the Government are not looking at individual risk.

It was interesting to find Nigeria on the list, because if LGBTQ people are returned to Nigeria, they are at significant risk. Nigeria topped a danger index of countries for LGBT people. Men would face the death penalty by stoning and women whipping and imprisonment if they were found to be LGBT. So the very real risk that we are trying to prevent through this amendment is to prevent people being returned to these countries. Jamaica is No.18 on that same danger list, but it is listed here as a country that the Home Secretary is perfectly happy to return LGBT people to, even if it is to an uncertain future where they would be outlawed from living their life and expressing the rights that they have.

Sir Roger, there are many amendments that we could speak to, because all of this Bill is an assault on human rights. We believe that human rights should belong to everybody. The Home Secretary should not get to deny them to a group of people just because of how they happened to arrive in this country. We know that there are many people who will flee very dangerous circumstances and will try to reunite with a family member who is already here—that family member might be the very last person in their family who is alive. They could have seen the rest of their family killed in front of them, and have an uncle here in the UK, but if they cannot get here by any safe or legal routes to that uncle, to that last remaining family member, as is referred to in our amendments, then how will they possibly be able to live their life?

We are sentencing people to a life in limbo—a life that they will no longer be able to live. The Government have not thought through the full consequences of the Bill. What will happen to these people who are forever left in limbo?

I wish to mention amendment 246, which says that these measures can be put forward only with the consent of the Welsh Senedd, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government will not get legislative consent for these measures. I have a letter signed by a significant number of Members of the Scottish Parliament who do not give consent for this, who do not accept the Bill, and who do not think that it is something that they want to see. It is an affront to our human rights in Scotland. It is not the kind of country that we wish to build. I was very proud to see Humza Yousaf become our new First Minister in Scotland. Humza’s family—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. Let us try again. The new First Minister of Scotland, however honourable he may be, is not part of this legislation. Will the hon. Lady please stick to the amendments that are on the Order Paper? Otherwise I shall have to ask her to take her place.

[Alison Thewliss]

This matter is certainly pertinent to the amendments that we have tabled. Humza’s grandparents came here as immigrants. Under this Bill, they would not be able to find their way here in the same way. That is true of many people in this country who have come here and built their lives. Some of them have ended up as legislators in this place and are drawing the ladder up behind them. Humza has made it incredibly clear how grateful he is that he has this opportunity. His grandparents could not have imagined, when they came to the UK with very little and with no money in their pockets, that they could work their way up through society and that their grandson could aspire to achieve the highest position in Scotland—to be the First Minister of Scotland.

Instead of demonising immigrants, instead of demonising the people who come to this country, instead of saying to people such as Mo Farah that they would not get to come here in the future, we should listen to the experiences of people who have come here, who have made their lives here. We should thank those people for what they have contributed. We should thank them for doing us the honour of choosing to come to this country and making their home and life here. When we do not recognise that contribution, when Ministers pull the ladder up behind them, and when they prevent people from coming here, it makes this country poorer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

Am I not right in thinking that Sabir Zazai has been made an Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire? That is what asylum seekers can achieve in this country if they are allowed to flourish. That is what our amendment—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. Hon. Members are in danger of abusing the House. I am being scrupulously fair and trying to ensure that everything that is said remains in order. The hon. Gentleman was out of order. Now, will the hon. Member for Glasgow Central please conclude her remarks so that the Minister, if he wishes to, may respond? We will then move to the Divisions.

[Alison Thewliss]

With reference to amendment 189 and the contribution of Afghans, Sabir Zazai tells a story of when he was given a letter from the Home Office saying, “You are a person liable to be detained and removed.” More recently, at a celebration to mark his being awarded an OBE, he said he had received a different letter telling him he was being awarded this great honour of the British state. He said he would put those two letters on the wall next to one another, because they show that, regardless of the circumstances by which someone came to these islands, there ought to be nothing they cannot achieve.

There ought to be nothing—but this Bill pulls up the drawbridge. It makes this country smaller, it makes this country meaner and it makes this country crueller—for every Sabir Zazai, for every Abdul Bostani, for every person that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) is outraged about. People can come here and make a contribution. They could live a dull, boring, ordinary life, they could be an OBE, they could be the First Minister of a country, but they have a contribution to make and they deserve to get to make that contribution without the UK Government pulling up the drawbridge and saying that they are unwelcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I sat through many phone calls at the time with Ministers and with constituents who were terrified for their family members. Many of them still do not know whether they will get to safety at all, despite having applied through the process. They are waiting with an uncertain future in Afghanistan, where their lives are under threat, where their daughters cannot go into education and where they are pursued by the Taliban day in, day out. The point about Afghans in this Bill is particularly serious.

However, there are other nationalities of whom we could equally say that: Iraqis who helped to support British forces, and other people from other countries where Britain has a footprint. Many people come here because of the footprint Britain has had in the world, and we have a particular responsibility to those people. The Afghan interpreters in their exhibition used the phrase, “We are here because you were there.” That speaks also to the legacy of empire, the legacy of the English language and the legacy of Britain around the world. That is why people seek to come here.

I believe very firmly that we have a duty and a responsibility to people around the world. This Government renege on that responsibility. That is what the Bill is all about. My real fear is that, having seen Britain do it, other countries will pull up the drawbridge; that they will renege on their international obligations, saying, “If Britain can do it, other countries can do it, too. If Britain will not stand up for human rights, why do we need to bother? If Britain does not stand up for the refugee convention, why should we? If Britain does not stand up for the UN convention on the rights of the child, why should we bother either? Let’s get children back into slavery to be trafficked all over the place.”

This Government are not protecting children. That is why we have tabled these amendments: we seek to protect people who are being trafficked and exploited. This Government, by ignoring our amendments, seek to refuse people that protection, that human dignity, the rights that they have under our international obligations. We have those rights because of the things that we have done in the past. We should no longer have to put up with this Government. Scotland needs independence. It cannot trust this Government to look after it.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)]

Does the Minister wish to respond?

[Robert Jenrick]

indicated dissent.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Does the hon. Lady wish to press the amendment to a Division?

[Alison Thewliss]

indicated dissent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 189, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) This section does not apply to a person (“A”) who is an Afghan national where there is a real risk of persecution or serious harm to A if returned to that country.”—(Alison Thewliss.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.