Victims and Prisoners Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. After the next speaker, I am afraid I will have to reduce the time limit to four minutes. At least Members have been forewarned.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I will speak to new clause 43, but first I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who has fought tirelessly for that change and for so many more on behalf of victims.

My constituents Chloe Ann Rutherford and Liam Thomas Allen Curry were murdered in the Manchester Arena attack. In 2022, after sitting through the public inquiry and listening to every agonising detail of what their children went through, Chloe and Liam’s parents were told that they would be denied the right to register their children’s deaths due to outdated legislation that states that, where deaths require an inquest or inquiry, death registration is to be done solely by the registrar. All those devoted parents wanted to do was to be part of that final official act for their precious children.

After meeting with the then Minister, we had assurances that he would look urgently at whether and how those changes could be made. With each change of Minister, the promises continued, yet nothing has changed. In February this year, the bereaved families attended another meeting with Ministers. In that meeting they were treated with contempt, patronised and insulted. It became clear that they had been misled by the Government for nearly a year, because despite it being entirely possible to change that law, the Government just did not want to do so.

The current Minister suggested in Committee that I strengthen my amendment, so I did, but just last week he said that it was no longer possible due to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which will digitalise death registration. It feels like yet another excuse, because new clause 43 would give the Secretary of State the power to modify any provisions, which would enable the clause to be shifted to a digital state in future.

Lisa, Chloe’s mam, has spoken to me about how they were told at the outset that their beloved children did not belong to them but belonged to the state. She said that, despite the rhetoric that we always hear about families coming first, they simply do not. Caroline, Liam’s mam, explained that registering Liam’s death would have allowed her to begin grieving, and that if she could not do that for him, she would feel like she had failed him. She did not fail him; it was the state that failed him.

In June this year, Chloe and Liam’s parents, after six agonising years, watched as their children’s deaths were registered by a stranger. Chloe’s dad, Mark, said that

“it wasn’t the way we wanted this to be, because of our ridiculous government who only change laws to benefit themselves. We had to watch a random person sign it and not her Mam & Dad”.

They do not want anyone else to have to go through what they have gone through. Just last week, Caroline reminded me that because she was removed from the process, Liam’s name and date of birth were originally recorded wrongly.

The Minister knows that I think he is a fairly decent bloke, and he knows that Chloe and Liam’s families deserved better than that, and that families in the future will deserve better too. There is no moral or legal reason to keep on blocking the new clause, or this change. I am hopeful that he will continue to work with me on this, but I am sure that he understands how deeply disappointed I am, and how let down my constituents feel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I am afraid that after the next speaker there will still be 10 people waiting to speak. We have to finish this section of proceedings at 8.50 pm in order to allow for the wind-up, so, after the next speech, the limit will be three minutes.

[Stella Creasy]

I associate myself with the amendments in the names of the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), my right hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) and, of course, my incomparable hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). In the time available to me, I will focus on the three amendments that I have tabled to flag issues with the Government.

Amendment 147 is about vicarious trauma. We are in a perverse situation right now—the Minister knows this—where we have to hope that a victim dies if we are to access support for our communities when traumatic things such as stabbings happen. I hope that the Minister will change that so that every child can be supported.

Amendment 148 is about overseas victims. It would simply restore the right that our constituents had when we were members of the European Union to have their rights as a victim upheld if they or a family member were a victim of crime overseas. I hope that the Minister will look at the victims’ rights directive, because so many people experience that.

New clause 32 is about a victim’s rights in relation to data. I was not sure that I would be able to table the new clause, because the court case that it refers was heard last Thursday. A year ago, a man started emailing my office with his concerns about my politics and the issues that I was working on. Like all Members when we get correspondence from non-constituents, I read the emails and filed them but did not respond. I was then called by my local social services because that man had decided that, because he disagreed with my views, I was not a fit mother for my children. He had reported me, an investigation had taken place, and while it cleared me, my children and I now have a social services record. When I went to the police about the matter, they said that he had a right to express his opinions in that way. I challenged it because, due to my work on stalking, I understood that somebody who could use a malicious report to harm someone was clearly dangerous. When I came forward, further reports came out revealing that this man had continued his campaign of harassment.

I am deeply grateful for the cross-party support for new clause 32, because although that man has now been convicted of harassment, his ability to target my family continues because the record continues. At present, there is no way of removing from someone’s record a clearly malicious and false accusation made to a third-party organisation. In tabling the new clause, I recognised that it is not just those of us in the public eye who may be targeted in this way; in many cases of stalking, we see people who fixate and use reporting mechanisms to damage their victims.

I have had no support or help from Parliament or anybody within the parliamentary process for my welfare or that of my children, but now I want to stand up for everybody who has been through this process. I ask the Minister to look at this, because victims of clearly malicious reports must have the opportunity to have the record corrected. Too often, people will say, “There is no smoke without fire.” I want to stand up for safeguarding —it is clearly a very important process—but if a court recognises that a report is malicious and a victim is being targeted but we cannot act to remove that report, the harassment will continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

I am sad to say that I have had several constituents approach me about the conduct of individual police officers on cases of violence against women and girls. That includes grossly inappropriate language, such as saying that one perpetrator of rape had a “reasonable expectation of consent” after drugging and assaulting my constituent to a point of significant bloodshed. I will not be more specific on individual cases, but I do not believe my constituents’ experiences are unique to Somerset.

Operation Soteria Bluestone was pioneered in Avon and Somerset police, and features groundbreaking collaboration between criminologists and police officers, and I was pleased to meet members of the team on Friday to discuss their work. I spoke in this place after the King’s Speech calling for Operation Soteria Bluestone to be properly funded and extended to all police forces, with a particular focus on educating officers.

Simple numbers in uniforms is not enough without thorough vetting and training, ensuring that all officers responding to victims and handling investigations do not perpetuate rape myths, accentuate victim trauma and mishandle evidence. My constituents must have the confidence that police and judicial officers have received thorough and appropriate training, and that they will be treated with due respect and regard by our justice apparatus in the most traumatic moments of their life. I therefore urge the Government to back new clause 29, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), and to support Liberal Democrat policies to improve community trust in police, to create the pipeline of trust by educating police officers, and to fund more community police officers by cutting police and crime commissioners.

Before I close, I would like to talk briefly about new clause 10, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I was concerned, but not shocked, to see in the Environment Agency report a large rise in the number of bathing water sites rated as poor quality. It shows the real impact that the Government’s neglect of poor behaviour by water firms has had on our health and wellbeing. Our precious rivers and waters bring a multitude of health benefits, as I see in my own constituency, where the wild swimming site in Farleigh Hungerford attracts many swimmers, and Vobster Quay, an inland diving and swimming centre, also brings the same benefits. I know that my constituents will be devastated to lose such an important cultural asset. I therefore support this vital new clause, which will help hold negligent water firms to account and provide compensation to those who have suffered illness as a direct result of criminal conduct in relation to sewage, and I urge the Government to do the same.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

With the leave of the House, I call the Minister to wind up the debate.

[Edward Argar]

It is a pleasure to bring this debate on the Victims and Prisoners Bill Report stage to a close. I am particularly grateful for the co-operative and constructive spirit in which the debate has taken place, and for the broad support received for the Bill so far. Given the number of contributions that have been made, I will endeavour to cover them thematically. I am afraid I will be brief, and I apologise to any right hon. and hon. Members whose contributions I do not address directly.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) spoke with considerable and typical courage, and in her typically forthright way. I say to her that I and the appropriate Minister will be happy to have further discussions with her on the issues she raised.

The hon. Members for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) talked about stalking in the context of Gracie Spinks. As a fellow east midlands Member of Parliament, I am very familiar with that case; we see updates on it regularly on “East Midlands Today”. The hon. Member for Chesterfield highlighted the recent work and publication by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which we will look at very carefully. I know that the Minister for victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), will look carefully at what is contained in the report.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) raised the issue of non-disclosure agreements. We are sympathetic to the concerns raised and will be carefully considering with the Department for Business and Trade how best to take this forward, including considering legislation. We will provide an update in the new year.

The duty of candour was raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and I am grateful for his typically reasonable tone throughout his contribution. The full position on the duty of candour will be set out shortly in an oral statement setting out the Government’s response to Bishop James Jones’s report. To respect the process, we cannot pre-empt that statement prior to it taking place on Wednesday. However, the Criminal Justice Bill, which is before the House already, includes an organisational duty of candour aimed at chief officers of police, making them responsible for ensuring that individuals within their remit act appropriately and with candour. We believe that that legislative vehicle, and that legislation, is the right place for that important debate to take place.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and the shadow Minister talked about free legal advice for victims of rape. The Law Commission is currently considering the merits of independent legal advice as part of its wider review on the use of evidence in sexual offences prosecutions. This is an important issue, but we believe that we should receive and consider the findings of that extensive piece of work before committing to further action.

I turn now to amendments 142 to 144 and new clauses 27 and 42. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and the shadow Minister for raising this extremely important topic. The infected blood scandal should never have happened. My thoughts, and I believe those of the whole House, remain with those impacted by this appalling tragedy. I confirm on behalf of the Cabinet Office, which is the lead Department, that the Minister for the Cabinet Office will make a statement ahead of the House rising for Christmas on Government progress on the infected blood inquiry, and that we will commit to update Parliament with an oral statement on next steps within 25 sitting days of the final report being published.

We have studied carefully the proposals made by the right hon. Lady, which are supported widely across the House. The Government, as she said, have already accepted the moral case for compensation, and we are grateful for the work of Sir Brian Langstaff. We have great sympathy with new clause 27 and the intention to ensure that the legal groundwork is in place to enable a delivery body to be established. I therefore confirm that, when the Bill reaches the Lords, we will bring forward our own amendment, which will put in place the necessary legislative framework and timescales for a delivery body for compensation for the victims of infected blood to be established, in line with the overall objectives set out in her new clause. That will ensure that the Government can move quickly, as soon as the inquiry reports.

I turn to IPP prisoners. While I appreciate that the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), would wish us to go further with resentencing, I believe that we have made considerable progress in what we have set out to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

As is appropriate on these occasions, I want to put on record, if I may, my gratitude and my thanks to the officials who have worked on this Bill in the Ministry of Justice and my private office; the fantastic Nikki Jones, who has managed this Bill through the Commons as an official; the Whips, the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee and the Lord President of the Council for her assistance; and my Parliamentary Private Secretary until he was made a Whip a few short weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). Most importantly, I would like to thank the victims who have contributed to this, as well as the stakeholders, the organisations and the campaigners. I should also express once again my gratitude to Opposition Front Benchers for their constructive approach and tone throughout, particularly on those long days in Committee, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson).

This Bill has as a central objective to ensure that victims are treated like participants in the justice process rather than bystanders. It is no less than they deserve, and it represents a major step forward, building on the progress made for victims in the last decade. The Bill has been a long time in the making, but getting it into law will strengthen the voice of victims of crime and major incidents in our criminal justice system so that they can be supported to recover and see justice done. It is not only the right thing to do; our hope and belief is that it will also enable us to bring more criminals to justice, keeping the British people safe and providing them with the support they need.

This Bill in many ways represents the very best of this House and its ability to make meaningful change for the people who send us here and the people we serve, and I pay tribute to Members on both sides for their contributions in getting us to this point. Mindful of the tone and spirit in which these debates have been conducted, I will conclude to allow the shadow Secretary of State to put her thanks to her team on record as well.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

HM Prison Bedford

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

If I may briefly crave your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to put on the record my tribute to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, on the news of his sad passing. He was a man of intellect, integrity and ability, and had a deep commitment to public service. He will be missed by all in this House. We send our condolences and sympathies to his family.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) for securing this important debate. As he knows, I am deeply concerned by the recent findings of HM inspectorate of prisons at HMP Bedford, particularly in regard to safety and living conditions, and I have been clear that the situation needs to improve quickly. This is, as he set out clearly, the second time that an urgent notification has been invoked at HMP Bedford. I agree that the circumstances leading to it are not acceptable. Before I turn to the specifics that he raised about the situation at Bedford, I hope that he will allow me a moment to remind the House of the context—his speech rightly ranged more widely than Bedford alone—and of the steps that we are taking to improve prisons and justice across the country, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor set out in his statement of 16 October.

On prison capacity, the House will be aware that we are building six new prisons as we create an additional 20,000 places to deliver the biggest prison expansion in over a century. We have already delivered just shy of 6,000 of these additional places, and the brand-new category C resettlement prison, HMP Fosse Way, opened its doors in May this year and will house up to 1,715 prisoners. At the same time, we are creating thousands of places through the expansion of prisons with additional house blocks and major refurbishments at existing prisons, and by rolling out rapid deployment cells across the estate—the first 380 or so have already been delivered at six sites.

The hon. Gentleman raised a specific point about Bedford. There are no plans to re-roll Bedford Prison at this point. I appreciate that he may be disappointed by that, but it is important that I am open with him, as I will seek to be throughout my speech. I would gently say, in respect of prison capacity, that we are getting on with delivering that increase in modern, effective rehabilitative prison places through those six new prisons. By regrettable contrast, the plans under Jack Straw in the last Labour Government were to build 7,500 places in three Titan prisons, and, to the best of my recollection, they never got built at all.

In respect of staffing, I join the hon. Gentleman in rightly paying tribute to all those who work in our prisons—prison officers and all the staff in a range of capacities—for their work. Since March 2017, we have also increased the number of prison officers in public sector prisons by 4,655, and we made a commitment in 2021 to hire up to 5,000 prison officers across public and private prisons by the mid-2020s. As he alluded to, the increase in numbers means that, as we grow the workforce, which is a positive thing, we are also bringing new joiners and staff to the prison service, who will, by logic, have fewer years of service under their belt. It is important that we continue doing what we are doing to retain experienced officers alongside them as part of their mentoring and the development of their skills.

We have improved starting salaries for officers, which have risen from £22,000 to £31,000 since 2019. The staffing picture is improving in prisons across the country: in the 12 months from last September—the latest figures I have—the number of officers has increased by 1,441 full-time equivalents. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight that we are also improving the retention of staff: the resignation rate among frontline prison officers is down by almost three percentage points compared with last year. There is more to do, but that is progress, and it is important that we continue on that trajectory.

The hon. Gentleman also rightly highlighted prison safety, which I will address in a broader context before I turn to his local prison. We continue to take the necessary action to make our prisons safe both for frontline staff and for prisoners. The overall rate of assaults is 26% lower than prior to the pandemic. Of course, every assault is one too many, and we continue to work to improve the security of our prisons and reduce violence and the number of assaults within them, but I highlight that degree of positive progress to him.

The measures that we are putting in place to reduce violence in our prisons estate include our £100 million security investment to clamp down on the weapons, drugs and mobile phones that fuel violence and crime behind bars, and the continued rollout of PAVA—a synthetic pepper spray—in the adult male estate to protect staff and prisoners from incidents of serious violence, alongside de-escalation training for officers, which is also playing an important part.

Before I turn specifically to Bedford, let me address some of the broad-brush points that the hon. Gentleman made. He was right to highlight the five key purposes of sentencing. I highlight to him—although I am doing so from memory, so I will write to him to correct myself if I am incorrect—that reoffending is down by 9%, so again, that is working, but there is always more to do. He is right about the importance of substance misuse treatment programmes in getting people off substances that may drive their criminal behaviour. Their importance extends beyond prison, to when people are on release. My recollection is that there is a 54% reduction in reoffending if those programmes are continued in the community, the treatment is sustained, and the NHS, local authorities and prison authorities work together to make sure that it is in place. We are seeing positive outcomes there.

The hon. Gentleman quite rightly talked about the approach to sentencing at headline level, and the challenges of short sentences. They are often so short that we cannot get to grips with the underlying challenges that an individual faces, but long enough to break fragile ties and affect relationships, jobs and accommodation. I am very pleased that, on this issue, he appears to be following the approach set out by the Lord Chancellor, who suggests tougher sentences for those who commit the most heinous crimes, and tough community sentences as an alternative to short custodial sentences, though obviously discretion will rest with the sentencer. Also, while there should be a clear focus in the custodial estate on people paying their debt to society, they should also be able to make positive life choices about what they intend to do when they come out of prison, so that they can make a positive contribution and live life on the straight and narrow.

I turn to the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about his local prison, HMP Bedford. As he set out, His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons has highlighted significant concerns about the condition of cells and overcrowding at Bedford. I reassure him that I am treating that with the utmost seriousness. He asked a number of questions about measures that we will put in place in response to the urgent notification. In accordance with our usual protocol on responding to the inspectorate, the Lord Chancellor will publish his response to the urgent notification, and the action plan, no later than 15 December; there is 28 days in which to do that. That will be the detailed response. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the time he spared me earlier this week for a conversation, in which he set out and amplified his key concerns. I hope that I can engage with him as we finalise the action plan. I also highlight my gratitude to the governor for giving me her time when we spoke last week.

The findings are, as the hon. Gentleman said, deeply concerning. Notwithstanding the fact that there will be a formal response within 28 days, I can update him—and indeed you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the House—on a number of immediate actions that we have taken to drive improvement. These include providing additional resourcing support to the prison, equivalent to 15 additional prison officers, to improve the prison’s safety and security, and to improve the regime; I think the hon. Gentleman asked for additional support for the governor. We are undertaking a cell cleaning and painting programme to improve the physical environment, and completing a joint audit with our maintenance contractor to identify works and key priority areas, so that we can ensure that the work is done. We are introducing a cell conditions agreement to ensure that all cells are in good condition before they can be occupied. Decency checks to address concerns about cleanliness will be overseen by the governor; that will help directly with improving living conditions.

A working group has been set up, led by the governor, to understand issues regarding fair treatment. The hon. Gentleman raised that point when we spoke. The group will particularly focus on allegations of racism and other inappropriate behaviours. He has highlighted his concerns on that issue to me. We have made a number of new senior appointments at the prison; they include a new head of violence reduction, a new head of reducing reoffending, and a new head of education, skills and work.

His Majesty’s chief inspector noted in his letter to the Lord Chancellor that Bedford has

“consistently failed to provide good outcomes for prisoners”

since the inspection in 2016. The series of concerning inspections at Bedford is, of course, deeply troubling, and it may be useful if I briefly set out the improvements that we have made in response to previous inspection reports. Of course, they clearly have not resolved all the underlying issues, hence the hon. Gentleman’s securing this debate, but it is important that we highlight what has been done.

In response to His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons’ first urgent notification about HMP Bedford in 2018, a comprehensive safety strategy was implemented to support violence reduction, and a dedicated young adult unit was introduced to provide targeted support for prisoners and upskilling for staff. That resulted in lower levels of violence for that demographic group. We also provided additional staffing, including a safety hub manager, and a dedicated use of force co-ordinator in the safety team. In addition, we upgraded the head of safety post from a band 7 to a more senior band 8. Refurbishments also took place to improve decency and living conditions; they included improvements to showers and flooring.

HMP Bedford has also received support from the prison performance support programme, which offers tailored support for a maximum period of 18 months to prisons that face numerous complex challenges. The support for Bedford included over £1 million of additional funding focused on improving security and living conditions. Following the taking of those steps, the inspectorate undertook an independent review of progress in 2019 and found that although there had been some progress since 2018, progress on many of the inspectorate’s recommendations was insufficient. Inspectors found that despite the pandemic, improvements in living conditions had been made, including extensive, good-quality refurbishment of the communal shower rooms. However, previous concerns about violence and safety persisted.

In early 2022, the inspectorate visited Bedford to undertake a full inspection. It noted improvements at the prison, including strong leadership and an improved prison culture. Further improvements had also been made, such as investment in new windows and flooring and the installation of enhanced gate security. Alongside this, the capacity of the prison had been reduced by 76 spaces to allow residential accommodation to be refurbished. The inspection recognised that challenges remained, but it acknowledged that the prison was heading in a positive direction, and the oversight that followed the urgent notification of 2018 was removed from Bedford in October last year.

Even after the removal of urgent notification oversight, Bedford continued to receive support, for example through an ongoing compliance project, in which management checking systems were built to ensure that rules and regulations were fully followed by both staff and prisoners. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the latest inspection concluded that standards had slipped back at the prison, as the hon. Gentleman said, and a second UN was issued. It is also worrying that the contents of that urgent notification, which I considered very carefully, were, to my mind, similar to those of the 2018 notification. As I say, I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for discussing these matters with me earlier this week, and I hope that he will feel free to come to me with any specifics that he would like considered in the next few weeks, as we put together our response—and, indeed, if he would like more regular engagement as we work through what needs to be done to improve the prison in his constituency.

When we met, the hon. Gentleman raised a couple of points that I would like to address. He raised his concern about the impact on constituents who live near the prison; he mentioned people entering the gardens of properties that neighbour the prison in an attempt to throw things over the prison wall, and broader impacts. Speaking as a constituency MP, I entirely understand his concern when constituents bring him those issues. It is right that he makes those points to me as the Minister, and to the House more broadly. The prison has worked to enhance partnerships with both the local council and the police, so that it can tackle such behaviour; as part of that, the prison checks directly, on a weekly basis, on any complaints from residents, and follows up on them, if they have not been raised with Bedfordshire police. If it is helpful to him, he may wish to raise specific issues with me outwith this Chamber, in confidence.

The hon. Gentleman touched on his concerns about the inexperience of some staff at Bedford. Notwithstanding the benefits of increasing the number of staff in prison officer roles, we recognise the need to continue training rigorously. There is now a learning and capability manager in place to directly support all new staff at HMP Bedford. We have also provided for a full-time welfare post for HMP Bedford staff, so that they have that support, independent of local care team arrangements, should they need it. Having previously deployed standards coaching teams at the prison, I intend to redeploy them in the new year, to again help drive progress.

The HMIP findings are of course deeply concerning, and we are committed to improving the conditions at Bedford and at the other prisons where UNs have been triggered over the past year. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will be monitoring the situation at Bedford very closely in the coming weeks and months to ensure there is sustained improvement. Although I have had this specific brief for only about two and a half to three weeks, the hon. Member for Bedford will have had experience of dealing with me in other ministerial roles, and I hope he will recognise that just as I did in those roles, I will seek to work collaboratively with him where I can. We share the desired outcome of making improvements.

I also confirm on the record that the Lord Chancellor’s response to the urgent notification will be published by 15 December, as required. The hon. Gentleman will be able to obtain it, but I will make sure that a copy is sent to him for his records. A wider-ranging full action plan will also be developed in the longer term to address all HMIP recommendations and hopefully tackle some of the long-term underlying challenges that he has highlighted. I anticipate that that will be published in March 2024, but I will inform him when we have a more precise timing for that. I am grateful to him for bringing this important issue to this Chamber for debate, and look forward to working with him and the prison in the coming months to address the issues that have been highlighted.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Following the Minister’s opening remarks, I place on record my own sadness on learning of the death of Alistair Darling. He was a distinguished Member of this House, and one who I regarded from the Opposition Benches as a friend. The political landscape of the United Kingdom will be the bleaker because of his loss.

Question put and agreed to.

Firearms Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Friday 24th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Mullan]

Again, my hon. Friend makes an important point. I welcome the opportunity to clarify that, as he says, the police will have to make new and different decisions in enforcing this legislation. I am pleased to say that a new training and quality assurance package for police firearm licensing teams is being developed, which will contribute to their being able to make those decisions in a reliable and effective way.

It might be helpful if I briefly explained what the components of ammunition are, and how they go together to make a round of ammunition. The components are the gunpowder, used to propel a projectile from a firearm; the primer, which is an explosive compound that ignites the gunpowder, projectile or bullet; and the cartridge case. There are already controls on primers in the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. Section 35 of that Act makes it an offence to sell or purchase primers unless the purchaser is authorised to possess them—for example, by being a registered firearms dealer, or by holding a firearm certificate authorising them to possess ammunition for a firearm.

Controls on the possession of gunpowder are set out in the Explosives Regulations 2014, which state that with certain exceptions, anyone wanting to acquire or keep explosives must hold an explosives certificate issued by the police. The projectiles or bullets and the cartridge case are constructed of inert material, and are not controlled. Frankly, given the nature of those two components and the quantities in which they are made, it would be difficult to control their possession, and there is no wish to do so.

The present situation can make the prosecution of certain cases by the police difficult. Where there is intent to produce ammunition unlawfully, the police may be unable to progress with certain criminal cases if the materials found are not controlled. In view of those concerns, the firearms safety consultation sought views on whether controls on component parts of ammunition remained sufficient, or whether they should be strengthened by making it an offence to possess component parts with intent to assemble unauthorised quantities of ammunition. As I say, intent is vital. A majority of respondents—62% —agreed or strongly agreed that possession of component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacturer unauthorised quantities of complete rounds of ammunition should be made an offence.

Assembly of ammunition requires use of the various component parts, including the restricted and unrestricted components. The new offence will better enable the police to prosecute criminals who are manufacturing ammunition, including in cases in which only some of the component parts are present, provided that intent is shown. It will be a significant step forward in helping the police to tackle gun crime.

This is a small but important Bill. Events such as those in Keyham in August 2021, on Skye in August 2022 and more recently at Epsom College are clear reminders that we cannot afford to be complacent about the risks that firearms present. The Bill will address two identified vulnerabilities in this country’s firearms controls, and it is right that we take action to address them. I very much appreciate the support that it has so far received; I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West feels the same. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Powers of Attorney Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Anna Firth]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has made that point, because I was about to come on to the two other issues with digitisation and why it is so good that we are keeping the paper channel for the time being. One issue is the 8 million-odd people who are not online at all, and the other issue is scams. Even my mother often calls me to run through something that someone has rung her up about or put on the computer. She needs that extra person to say, “That is complete nonsense.” She is lucky that she has family around her to do that, but there are plenty of people in their 80s who do not. I agree with my hon. Friend’s point.

Much has been said—almost everything that could be said—in support of this important Bill, which leaves me to say only, once again, that I am delighted to support it and to see support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is an important change to the legislation that will make a genuine improvement to the lives of my constituents in Southend West and will provide them, I hope, with the peace of mind that they need to ensure that their wishes, values and views will be represented, even when they can no longer make decisions for themselves.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson.

Assisted Dying

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Before I call Tonia Antoniazzi to move the motion, I need to make a short statement about sub judice. I have been advised that there are ongoing cases relating to the subject of today’s debate, which, for the sub judice resolution, have not been waived. All Members must refrain from making reference to any active court cases. The Chair, whether it is me or my successor in the Chair, will call you immediately to order should you seek to raise any individual case. I have to make that point very strongly and clearly.

After the opening speech, it is already apparent that we shall have to confine speeches very rigidly indeed. As a courtesy to all colleagues, given that there will inevitably be some interventions, we had better start from the premise that we will limit all speeches to five minutes only. I am sorry about that, but I wish to accommodate as many people as possible for what is clearly a very important debate. I call Tonia Antoniazzi.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. May I invite any Members who are standing and who have not taken a seat to come and take one if they wish to do so? We do not stand on ceremony on occasions like this; you may well want to sit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. We have heard a lot about quality of life, but who are we to judge what a quality life really is? Is someone who is profoundly disabled without quality? Is someone with profound learning difficulties without quality? Why do we assume that the only lives worth living are those that are perfect or of high quality in the eyes of others?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I fear that we shall never hear the answer to my right hon. Friend. We have to stick to the five-minute limit, and you get injury time only on the first occasion that you give way, I am afraid. That is a message for all Members.

Laboratory Animals: Animal Welfare Act

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I had not intended to speak in this debate; I came to listen. In the light of some of the comments, however, I basically want to ask a question and to put down a caveat.

In the early 1980s, the splendid Bill Annett, who was the driving force behind the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, prevailed on me to become the founding chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for FRAME. It was supported by Professor Michael Balls, an eminent professor at Nottingham University, whose work in the validation of alternatives is probably second to none. Michael went on to become the director of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods.

The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 was taken through the House by, from memory, my right hon. Friend David Mellor, who paid a considerable personal price for his work on that piece of legislation. The Act, when it hit the statute book, was regarded as a benchmark for animals legislation. Well, rather a few years have gone by since then, Mr Pritchard. We thought we were on a roll, but it saddens me to say that far too little progress to validate alternative methods has been made since.

We all want to see zero use of animals in medicine, but for the foreseeable future it is clear that that is not going to happen, for a variety of reasons, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said, because animals are used in experimentation during the creation of medicines for animals. Clearly, that is necessary for the foreseeable future.

I stand to be corrected, but I believe it is also still the case that the licensing of new medical products around the world depends upon the use of animals. Whether that is necessary or not is immaterial, in this context, as it is a fact. If someone wants a licence for a new pharmaceutical entity for use in Japan, the United States or Europe, it is a requirement that it has been tested on animals. Personally, I happen to believe that the science has by far overtaken that necessity. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) referred to work with genomics. It is infinitely more possible now to do in vitro rather than in vivo testing of pharmaceutical products, and we should be moving faster in that direction.

My caveat to those who say, “Ban it now,” is that if we do that, those tests will still have to take place internationally and we would be in danger—I do not think this is a spurious argument—of simply transferring the problem from A to B, and patting ourselves on the back, while finding that the animals are still being used in testing in other countries, under far worse conditions than they are treated in the United Kingdom. Whether we like it or not, the veterinary profession takes a clear view of the work of the named vets in pharmaceutical companies, and I have no reason to suppose that they are anything other than humane and responsible.

My question for the Minister is, how can we use the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, or other animal welfare legislation going through the House, to bring the process up to date, to advance progress towards the abolition of the use of animals in medical experiments and to do that in such a way that we can carry the international community with us? While a ban in the United Kingdom might make us feel good, it is not going to solve the problem. There has to be a global and, most certainly, a European solution, as well as a national one.

Marriage and Civil Partnership: Minimum Age

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Latham]

I have not actually looked at comparative ages in the rest of Europe. However, certainly in Africa and other developing countries, there is a wide range. We ask African countries and anywhere that we send development money to not to allow children to marry, and to set the minimum age at 18. They turn to us and ask why they should listen, because we allow children to marry. That is another very good reason why we should increase the age to 18.

The problem cuts across religions, regions and cultures, and it happens at home in the UK too, in the 21st century. The fact that it is possible to marry at 16 effectively means that child marriage is written into British law, which is held up as a guiding light in legal systems across the world. By not changing it, we give regimes an excuse to say, “What’s good for the British is good for us.”

I previously advocated changing our marriage law to increase the legal age to 18—with no exceptions—through a ten-minute rule Bill. Unfortunately, I had to withdraw it on Second Reading. Among the arguments I made in the House in support of the Bill were those relating to maturity levels, negative social implications, meeting international standards and helping to prevent forced marriages. I will reiterate all those arguments in more detail in this speech, to stress the importance of increasing the legal age of marriage in the UK.

Statistics on marriage among 16 and 17-year-olds are limited, but a limited dataset can be found on the Office for National Statistics website. It shows that 40 boys and 200 girls aged 16 to 17 married an opposite-sex partner in 2014, which is the most recent period for which we have data. Same-sex partners can now also marry at 16, but there is no recorded data on same-sex couples getting married at 16 or 17, which might be because there are so few cases, or none at all, of same-sex couples marrying below 18. The numbers might be relatively low, but the negative impact on the individuals involved in the marriage are large and wide-ranging.

Hon. Members should keep in mind the wider influence that our laws have. Increasing the marriage age in the UK to 18 has been gathering political momentum for some time. It should be noted that in 2017 Parliament considered the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill, which sought to raise the minimum age of consent to marriage or civil partnership to 18 and create an offence of causing a person under 18 to enter into a marriage or civil partnership. Unfortunately, the 2016-17 Session was prorogued and the Bill made no further progress. I attempted to reignite the process with my ten-minute rule Bill, but this failed on Second Reading.

Frustratingly, previous efforts to amend the existing law have been rejected or delayed for a number of reasons. One argument is that the number of people who get married under 18 is so low—and ever decreasing—that it is not worth the legislative time to change the law. However, for those who get married at such a young age, the social impact is enormous, and as we have not legislated for more than a month, we could have fitted it in. The reality is that the largest body of people that this change in the law will protect are not foolish, love-struck teens but vulnerable young women forced into marriages permitted by their own families for a host of social and cultural reasons.

As a nation, we have a moral duty to do everything in our power to reduce the number of forced marriages and close loopholes that make it possible to obtain such marriages by legal means. This relatively simple and straightforward change to the existing law would have a significant impact on young people. Marriage is a major life decision for which children are not emotionally or physically ready. Marriage is intended to be a lifetime commitment and should not be rushed into. Setting the minimum age of marriage at 18 provides an objective, rather than subjective, standard of maturity, which safeguards a child from being married when they are not ready.

I passionately believe that it should be our priority to protect children, and that may mean from themselves as well as from potential dangers from others. The very fact that children of 16 and 17 need the consent of their parents to be married shows that they are not mature enough to make the decisions themselves—they are children. Increasing the age to 18 ensures that teenagers do not recklessly and naively rush into marriage, but it also protects them from the demands of parents who try to push their offspring to marry early. I say this as somebody who believes in marriage; I am not trying to stop marriage, just for those who are too young. In both cases, child marriages suffer from complications that too often end in divorce.

This year marks 101 years of the suffragette movement. We should recall that it was pressure from those brave campaigners that brought about the Age of Marriage Act 1929. Until then there was no defined minimum age, and making it 16 was seen as protecting children. However, 90 years ago, most young people aged 16 would have been working, probably since they were 14, unlike now, in England, where they must stay in either full-time education or training. My own mother started work at 14, so it would not have been unreasonable for her to get married at 16. She did not; she waited until she was 19, which in my view is still too young. However, life has changed. In other words, that was then and this is now, and we need to move with the times. Culture has changed, and so has our commitment to protecting young people—or at least it should have done.

There are a number of negative consequences from marrying at 16 or 17. Research has shown that child marriage is often associated with leaving education early, limited career and vocational opportunities, serious physical and mental health problems, developmental difficulties for the children born to young mothers, and an increased risk of domestic violence. A clear example of that is that if married children drop out of school and fail to finish education and training, they can subsequently be locked into poverty. It is clear that that phenomenon disproportionately affects girls. Child brides in particular are often isolated, with limited opportunities to participate in the development of their wider communities and reach their full potential in modern society. It is difficult for child brides to pursue education, employment or entrepreneurial opportunities. Child marriage therefore hampers efforts to eradicate poverty and achieve sustainable development goals. It leaves young brides at risk of premature school drop-out, sexual activity—often without consent or contraception—and the myriad health-related consequences that accompany teenage pregnancy.

The Campaign for Female Education notes that teenage birth rates are highest where child marriage is most prevalent. When girls become pregnant before their bodies are ready, they are at high risk of complications during pregnancy and childbirth, which endanger the life of both mother and child. Human Rights Watch noted that girls who marry are at higher risk of domestic violence than women who marry as adults. The Campaign for Female Education supports that assertion.

It is interesting to note that, in general, fewer people are getting married at a young age. For marriages of opposite-sex couples, the average age for men marrying in 2015 was 37.5 years and for women it was 35.1 years. People are less likely to settle down quickly when they are young.

There is a far greater focus on education for both men and women now. Quite rightly, ambition and expectation are higher for many young people in the modern day and age. The late teens and early twenties are seen as key development years to study, travel and consider options for the world of work. Historically, women may have got married younger, but in the modern world their education and employment prospects are far greater. Some 37.1% of young women go to university, which did not happen in previous years.

The Campaign for Female Education states that women who are employed reinvest 90% of their earnings in their families, lifting themselves, their children, their siblings and relatives out of poverty. However, when a girl is married as a child, that can often mean the end of her education and impede her ability to become financially independent. The campaign concludes:

“One girl’s potential to lift an entire family, and even a community, out of poverty disappears. This is happening millions of times over. As the inter-generational cycle of poverty continues, youth unemployment and economic instability can lead to migration, conflict and violence.”

Every child bride could have been a doctor, teacher, scientist, entrepreneur or politician even. There is a huge social as well as economic cost to child marriage.

British law should act as a gold standard internationally and reverberate around the world. That should be the case with child marriage. We should be using our influence with other countries to end child marriage. Unfortunately, the UK is out of sync with other western countries and ignores the advice of the international human rights conventions on this issue. The international human rights conventions on women’s rights and on children say that countries should end the practice of enabling child marriage below 18. The UK is violating those commitments. Under the UN sustainable development goals, countries around the world have pledged to end child marriage—any marriage in which one or both spouses are under 18—and we have promised to do that by 2030. Human Rights Watch has asserted that the EU could do more to help to end child marriage, and I understand that the European Parliament is working towards that.

Many countries’ legal systems prevent marriage before the age of 18. I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) that I had not researched the position in Europe, but I have looked at Sweden, the Netherlands and Spain, because they recently reformed their laws on child marriage, as did the US state of Virginia. Similar laws are pending in other US states, but not in this country yet. Other countries permit marriage among the young only for certain groups. For instance, according to the US State Department’s human rights report on Trinidad and Tobago from 2014, the official marriage age is 18 for men and women, but Muslims and Hindus have a separate Marriage Act.

International law is very specific about who should be allowed to marry. If a country wants to permit exceptions to the minimum age of 18, “mature, capable” children are allowed to marry, but only “in exceptional circumstances” at age 16 or older, when

“such decisions are made by a judge based on legitimate exceptional grounds defined by law”

and

“without deference to culture and tradition.”

By allowing 16-year-olds to marry without consent from a judge, the UK is in reality breaking international law. However, the great hypocrisy here is that we ask other countries, in the developing world, to abide by international law and ensure that the legal age of marriage is 18. I believe it is vital that the UK live by the standards that it is keen to advocate for in the developing world.

Following the first Girl Summit in 2014, the Department for International Development allocated up to £39 million over five years to support global efforts to prevent child marriages. There is a vast body of work to do, as globally 15 million girls under 18 are married each year. By its proactive contribution, the UK recognised that child marriages result in early pregnancy and girls facing social isolation, interrupted schooling, limited career and vocational opportunities and an increased risk of domestic violence, so why are we not leading the way by increasing the legal age of marriage in this country?

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

If I get the opportunity, I hope to catch your eye, Mr Bailey, and raise a couple of points, but in the interim, let me ask this. My hon. Friend has referred yet again to teenage pregnancy. Can she clarify whether she is seeking to change both the legal age of marriage and the age of sexual consent, or just the legal age of marriage?

[Mrs Latham]

With my Bill, if I can bring it back after the next Queen’s Speech, I would be looking to change only the age of marriage. I do not think the House would accept changing the legal age at which sex can take place and I think it would be very difficult to stop that—to change that law. Although it might be desirable, I think it would be impossible—just think of all the young people in this country, with hormones racing round their bodies—to stop sex happening. It has happened throughout the ages, and I think that a measure to try to stop it in this day and age would not get through the House. What I want to do is to change the age of marriage, and perhaps that will have some influence in terms of people deciding to keep themselves pure until they get married. That is a hope I have, but I do not know whether it is a reality.

Why are we not leading the way by increasing the legal age of marriage in this country from 16 to 18, which is the recognised age of adulthood? In Bangladesh, which has the second highest absolute number of child marriages in the world—just under 4 million—some lobbyists are said to be using the current UK law as an example of why the legal age of marriage there should be lowered. They are saying, “You allow children to get married. Why shouldn’t we? Why should we listen to you?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I will endeavour to be brief. I have just been doing a quick bit of research while the debate has been taking place. To start, I notice that throughout the European Union—I appreciate that that may not be regarded as a particularly good example at present—the average age of marriage is fixed at 18 legally. That varies in some cases between men and women. In the Nordic countries, for example, the age for males to marry without consent appears to be 18, while for women it can be 16, which tells us something about the problems we are facing in this day and age. That is why I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) about the age of consent. There are those of us who believe, as she clearly does and as I do, that the age of marriage without or even with consent is too young and needs to be raised to 18, but we then have the problem of promoting unmarried sexual relationships, which many of us would not wish to seek to do. There is a dilemma there.

I was running a yard rule over the ages of consent, and they range from 11 in Nigeria up to Portugal at 21, though the age of consent for marriage in Portugal is 18, which presumably makes for some interesting celibate relationships between the ages of 18 and 21. I am not sure how they square that circle, but happily that is not our problem. We are here to discuss the situation that prevails and the situation we would like to see prevail in the United Kingdom.

I have listened to the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Derbyshire and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and I concur with virtually everything they said, but I do not think we are here this morning to preach, and I am not here to sit in judgment on my fellow man or, in this case, more particularly, my fellow woman. Relationships and cultures vary, but we live in a United Kingdom that sets its norms and standards by the wishes of our population, and, in so far as it is possible—I think it is right to use the phrase that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire used—we try to set a gold standard. We seek to do what is right for the young men and women of our country, of whatever colour, class, denomination or creed.

I hope you will permit this, Mr Bailey, but I will digress very slightly. During the debates on same-sex relationships—note that I use the word “relationships”—as a Christian and an Anglican, I apparently heretically raised the proposal that marriage, a word I use advisedly, is a relationship between a man and a woman with a view to procreation and that anything else is a partnership. That is something that prevails not only in the Christian faith, but in many other faiths—probably most. I put forward the suggestion that we should recognise the fundamental difference between a civil union and a faith marriage and that the word “marriage” should be reserved for faith. I would have got rid of registry office weddings and civil unions and had one category of civil partnership, whether heterosexual or same-sex, for everything else. That would have made a much safer definition for everyone, but unhappily we did not go down that road at the time, because that was not the way the political wind or political correctness were going.

While seeking to recognise the separation between the age of consent and marriage, or civil union—in this context, I will use “civil union” from now on—it seems to me that one of the duties we have is to protect young people from predatory older adults of whatever sex. I can just about remember when I was 16. I suspect I was fairly vulnerable; I suspect most of us were and I suspect that young people today still are, in the main, in the United Kingdom, which is what we are talking about.

I understand the culture of arranged marriages, but that is not what we practise in our culture. I do not think they are advisable or desirable, but if such marriages are going to take place and that is the nature of the culture, I see no reason whatever why even an arranged marriage should not be arranged at 18, rather than 16. I take the point that has been made that 18 ought to allow a child to have a childhood, an education and a degree of maturity, whether male or female, before entering into what for some of us is the most sacred of unions. By the way, I speak as a hypocrite, because I am a divorced married man. I am happily married now, but I have to concede that my “till death us do part” vows did not hold. I want to set the record straight on that. I am unable, in the terms of my faith, to marry the lady whom I love and live with in a Christian church because technically, in the eyes of the Lord, I am still married.

Although I support the motion, I want to put down one caveat, which is that comparisons with other continents are dangerous. I have worked as an international election observer in many countries for some years, but particularly throughout the continent of Africa, where the voting age is 18, as it is in most countries. I recall very vividly challenging a young lady about her voting intention as she was queueing to vote. I asked her to produce a card, which she did. She had an ID card that claimed she was over 18. Well, that young lady was certainly not a day over 13, but she was carrying a baby on her back, and it was her baby. It was borne in upon me by local people that although this young lady was probably well under 18, sadly, in the terms of that particular country, where the average lifespan for a young woman is still probably only about 35, she was actually nearly halfway through her life.

If we look at it from that point of view, to suggest that that union, inside or outside of marriage, should not have taken place, becomes ridiculous. We have to recognise that while we may set an example and want to raise the bar ourselves and say, “This is what is right for our young people,” it ill behoves us to go to far-flung places to try to tell other people in other countries with other cultures and, sadly, other life expectancies, how to live.

[Mrs Latham]

I understand what my right hon. Friend says, but the girl is a child. If he thinks she was only 13, she must have been pregnant when she was 12. Whatever the culture of the country, it is a terrible burden for her, however long her life will be. She could have had the child at that age as a result of rape. She probably was not married. If she was married, it was probably a forced marriage. I cannot agree with his point, because that girl should never have had a child at that age. Whether she lives to 35 or 95, it matters not; her body is not ready for it. I fundamentally disagree with the point that he has made.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I knew it would be a point of disagreement; it was fairly inevitable. That is why I said carefully that I do not think we can come here and preach this morning. Secondly, while we are entitled to set our own gold standards and yardsticks, we should not seek to impose them on other people in other countries with other cultures. We can set an example and help to raise standards of living and life expectancy in other countries through our aid programmes and in other ways, but we cannot tell them what they should do.

The reality on the ground is precisely the reality that my hon. Friend conceded when she said we could not fix the age of marriage in this country to the age of consent. We have to live with the reality internationally. The reality in this country can well be marriage at 18, and in my view and my hon. Friend’s view, it should be, but to say that we are going to stand like Canute at the waves’ side and tell the tide to go away is nonsense. Realistically, politically and practicably, we will not be able to raise the age of consent. It simply will not happen.

There is an incompatibility between the age of consent argument and what we are proposing, which I endorse: the age of marriage at 18. I would prefer people to be married or in a formal, legal civil union before they have children, but in reality that is not the case. With those caveats, I am pleased to support my hon. Friend’s motion.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I welcome the Minister to his place and congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on securing this important debate. I thank Members for their valuable contributions today. The hon. Lady argued for raising the minimum age for marriage and civil partnerships, which I will respond to, but first I will lay out the current position.

The current law in England and Wales states that the minimum age for marriage or civil partnership without parental consent is 18. The number of 16 and 17-year-olds who married in 2016 stood at just 179, so the number of young people deciding to get married with their parents’ consent before they turn 18 is a relatively small group. But we must ensure that access to marriage and civil partnership is equal. The introduction of the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Act 2019, which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) worked so hard to secure, extended civil partnerships in England and Wales to non-same sex couples. The Labour party has a proud history of establishing equality—it introduced the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and equalised the age of consent—and I am very proud that this place introduced an equal marriage Bill that became law. Now civil partners can convert their partnership to a marriage if they so wish.

The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire has made various arguments for raising the minimum age for marriage and civil partnerships to protect against forced marriage. It is of the utmost importance that we protect vulnerable individuals who are exploited and coerced into a forced marriage. Forced marriage is a vile, dangerous and abhorrent practice, and we must ensure that those who fall victim to it are protected. Sadly, the practice takes place across the UK, and we need to do more to protect the vulnerable and offer them the dignified support that is required to free them from such relationships.

Statistics from the forced marriage unit show that in 2017, where the age was known, 15% of cases involved victims below 16 years of age, and nearly 30% involved those under 18, so the UK Government must do more to ensure that victims of forced marriage are listened to and given the support they require. Those who force vulnerable individuals into marriage—for example, to secure immigration status in the UK—must be challenged. Although I welcome the steps that the Government are taking against forced marriage, including their public consultation into introducing a legal mandatory reporting duty relating to cases of forced marriage, they have been too slow to react and those who are suffering now need urgent help.

I get what the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire says regarding maturity, but if we allow people to join the Army and buy a lottery ticket at 16, and given that Wales is currently consulting on lowering the voting age to 16, we cannot say that they are mature enough to do all of those things, but not mature enough to marry. I know several couples who met in school, married at 16 and have had wonderful married lives together. I also know many people who got married at 40 and within 18 months could not stand the sight of each other.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I think I am absolutely correct in saying that although it is technically possible for somebody to join the Army as a boy soldier at 16, they are not allowed to engage in combat until they are an adult.

[Carolyn Harris]

I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman; I was making the case that they were eligible to join the Army at 16.

Couples can fall out of love at any age; I do not believe that age plays any part in how their future develops. If this debate was about protecting people from forced marriage, I would 100% agree with the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire, and if it was about thousands and thousands of 16-year-olds getting married and then finding themselves getting divorced a few months later, I would also agree, but in reality we are talking about a very small number of young people who decide to get married very young for whatever reason. I remain receptive to the arguments, but I want to see a bigger conversation. Far be it from us to stand in the way of love’s young dream. I cannot honestly say that if my 16-year-old son came to me and said he wanted to get married, I would be best pleased, but I would support his decision and help him and his future partner in any way I could.

I really do appreciate the hon. Lady’s sentiments, but can we truly say that by increasing the age for marriage and civil partnerships to 18 we will stop forced marriage and unwanted pregnancies, and stop people remaining in happy relationships purely because they are 16? Let us have a bigger debate and work collectively to ensure that we protect and offer equality for all.

Pensions Uprating (UK Pensioners Living Overseas)

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on his good fortune in securing this debate. I also congratulate him on his election to officership of the all-party WASPI group. Perhaps in that capacity he will be good enough to write to my constituents who expect me to be at its meeting today to explain why both he and I are here rather than upstairs.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on frozen British pensions, might be surprised that my name is not on the motion. The reason is merely that it is technically flawed, as my hon. Friend the Minister and, I think, the hon. Gentleman recognised. However, that should not be allowed to diminish in any way its thrust, which is very simple. For that reason, I do not want to detain the House for very long.

This is about an injustice that was perpetrated just post-war and has continued ever since under successive Governments. The point has been made, but let us make it again: it is absurd that a pensioner living in Canada on one side of the Niagara falls has a frozen pension, while a pensioner living in the United States, 500 yards or so away on the other side of the river, does not have a frozen pension. There is no equity, no sense and no logic in that whatsoever.

It has been said, slightly incorrectly, that a lot of these people have paid national insurance contributions and should therefore be getting their pensions. We all need to recognise that national insurance is not a funded pension scheme. Unlike a private pension scheme, which is fully funded, NI is not—it contributes to a number of benefits. Nevertheless, throughout their working lives, very many of these now-elderly people who are being shoddily treated have not only paid national insurance contributions but paid their taxes to the United Kingdom, served the United Kingdom, and, in some cases, served the United Kingdom in the armed forces. If, in retirement, having paid their dues all their working lives, they wish then to join friends or family in another country, why should they not be able to do so and take their pensions with them?

As we have heard, there is another restriction on movement. A significant number of Commonwealth immigrants who came to the United Kingdom in the 1950s and 1960s, became established here, worked here, regard themselves as British and have paid their dues all their working lives, would like now, in old age, to return to the Caribbean, for example, but feel that they are being prevented from doing so because they are afraid that their pensions will be frozen and they will not be able to afford to live in the country of their birth. I believe that is morally wrong.

Another downside to all this is that we are in danger of generating a cadre of pensioners who will be coming back to the United Kingdom, like the 90-year-old in Canada who may have to abandon his partner who has dementia and come back here because he cannot afford to live. If they do so, there will be a cost to our health services and our social services. That needs to be taken into account by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury.

On expats living particularly in France and Spain but throughout the European Union, one potentially very serious issue has been touched on but skated over. If—I hope we do not—the United Kingdom votes to leave the European Union, there is no guarantee that those pensioners will continue to have their pensions uprated. Following the cessation of the winter fuel payment, on the slightly spurious grounds that Guadeloupe, Martinique and one or two other places are part of metropolitan France and that it is therefore appropriate to remove that benefit from those living there, a lot of these pensioners are not, as is popularly described, rich retirees living on yachts in the Mediterranean drinking gin; they are struggling. They will come home, because they will not have anywhere else to go. I suspect that the trickle of people doing so will turn into a torrent if we leave the European Union. It is no good the Brexit people saying we will negotiate unilateral agreements. With 27 countries? Okay, it may be mainly France and Spain, but we would also have to consider Italy, Greece and some of the other 26 member states dotted around the European Union. It is a very real issue that the DWP and the Treasury will have to face.

The all-party group recognises the very real difficulties involved in resolving a problem that has been allowed to build up over many years. With great respect to my hon. Friend the Minister, it is facile to say that successive Governments have done this. Successive Governments have, but successive Governments have been wrong, and it is time we put the injustice right. There has to be a way of addressing the issue.

John Markham, Jim Tilley and others from the International Consortium of British Pensioners have met the Cabinet Office and proposed what I believe to be a sensible solution. I understand entirely that the Treasury is very afraid—this is not a DWP issue, really—that if an inch is given, a mile will be taken in the law courts by people who will seek recompense for the last 40 years. That, of course, could add up to a considerable amount of money. We have to move forward, however. We cannot honourably stay where we are, so John Markham and his colleagues, along with the all-party group, have suggested to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that there should be an uprating based on receipt of today’s pensions. If somebody had their pension frozen 20 years ago when they left the United Kingdom, and many have, they would be uprated at that figure, not at today’s figure. That would be a pittance—a pitiful sum of money—but it would be a step in the right direction. Gradually, over time, it would resolve the problem and we would accept the principle that those pensions should be uprated in line with inflation year on year, which is the right principle.

Following receipt of John Markham’s paper, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has looked at it and construed that more information is needed. That I accept. The pensioners are not expert in all these matters, although they are pretty good. My understanding is that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been in touch with John Markham and referred the matter back to him. He is now assembling the further information that is required to enable the Office for Budget Responsibility to consider the matter.

The DWP, the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister all have to recognise this. If we do not address the problem, there will certainly be a moral cost, because we are wrong. There will also be a financial cost, on two fronts, because pensioners who cannot afford to live overseas will come home and pensioners who want to retire overseas will not go. At the end of the day, that will be a cost to the social services budget.

When my hon. Friend comes to respond, if he is granted the leave of the House to do so—I assume that he will be—I would like him simply to say that he recognises the problem, and that he understands that there has to be a way forward. There has to be a solution. I mean no disrespect to him, but I suspect that this is slightly above his pay grade; it is certainly above mine. I want this Conservative Government to have the pride and the courage to give people who are in retirement overseas the dignity that they deserve.

West London Coroner’s Court

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Before I call Mr Berry to move the next motion, I want to make it plain that it is neither my intention nor my desire to curtail debate. However, I have to advise colleagues that inquests, which are the subject of the House’s sub judice resolution, may not be referred to directly in this or, indeed, any other debate. Investigations that are under way by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office are not subject to the sub judice resolution, but I ask Members to exercise good sense in referring to such investigations. I will be as tolerant as I can, but I may have to draw the line. Looking at the number of Members present, I would be grateful if speakers apart from the opening speaker would curtail their remarks to no more than about three to four minutes.

Sentencing (Cruelty to Pets)

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Ordinarily, Mr Knight, it would not be proper to call a Member who has not heard the opening speech, but I will make an exception, because you took the trouble to write to Mr Speaker. Put that down as a marker for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

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

rose—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Once I call the Front Benchers, that will in effect be the end of Back-Bench contributions to the debate. Ms Solloway, do you wish to speak?

[Amanda Solloway]

No.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

That is fine. I wanted to be certain, so that you were not prevented from making a contribution if you wanted to.