Illegal Migration Bill
Rosie Winterton ExcerptsMonday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 27 March 2023 - (27 Mar 2023)
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 133, page 40, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) A suspensive claim, or an appeal in relation to a suspensive claim (only as permitted by or by virtue of this Act), shall be the only means through which a removal notice may be challenged.
(2B) Accordingly, other than claims identified in (2A), there shall be no interim relief, or court order, or suspensive legal challenges of any kind, available which would have the effect of preventing removal.”
This amendment intends to ensure that the only way to prevent a person’s removal is through a successful suspensive claim.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 76, page 40, line 8, leave out from “means” to the end of line 12 and insert—
“(a) a protection claim,
(b) a human rights claim, or
(c) a claim to be a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking.”
Amendment 77, page 40, line 22, after “a country or territory” insert
“where there are, in law and in practice—
“(i) appropriate reception arrangements for asylum seekers;
(ii) sufficiency of protection against serious harm and violations of fundamental rights;
(iii) protection against refoulement;
(iv) access to fair and efficient State asylum procedures, or to a previously afforded refugee status or other protective status that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2-34 of the 1951 Convention.
(v) the legal right to remain during the State asylum procedure; and
(vi) if found to be in need of international protection, a grant of refugee status that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2-34 of the 1951 Convention and”.
This amendment changes the definition of a “third country”.
Clause stand part.
Clause 38 stand part.
Amendment 78, in clause 39, page 41, line 19, leave out “not”.
Amendment 79, in clause 39, page 41, line 22, leave out “no” and insert “a”.
Amendment 134, in clause 39, page 41, line 28, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State must declare as inadmissible any human rights claim, protection claim, application for judicial review, or other legal claim which is not a suspensive claim or an appeal in relation to a suspensive claim, and which, if successful, would have the effect of preventing the removal of a person from the United Kingdom under this Act.”
This amendment intends to ensure that the only way to prevent a person’s removal is through a successful suspensive claim, as defined in clause 37.
Amendment 80, in clause 39, page 41, line 37, leave out “no” and insert “a”.
Clause 39 stand part.
Amendment 81, in clause 40, page 42, line 10, leave out from “and” to the end of line 16 and insert
“decide whether to accept or reject the claim.”
Amendment 82, in clause 40, page 42, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 83, in clause 40, page 42, line 30, leave out “compelling evidence” and insert
“evidence that there is a real risk”.
Amendment 84, in clause 40, page 42, line 34, leave out from the start of paragraph (b) to the end of subsection (5).
Amendment 85, in clause 40, page 43, line 1, leave out “8” and insert “21”.
Amendment 86, in clause 40, page 43, line 3, leave out “4” and insert “7”.
Clause 40 stand part.
Amendment 87, in clause 41, page 43, line 20, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 88, in clause 41, page 43, line 28, leave out “compelling evidence” and insert
“evidence on the balance of probabilities”.
Amendment 89, in clause 41, page 43, line 31, leave out from the start of paragraph (b) to the end of subsection (5).
Amendment 90, in clause 41, page 43, line 40, leave out “8” and insert “21”.
Amendment 91, in clause 41, page 43, line 42, leave out “4” and insert “7”.
Clause 41 stand part.
Amendment 92, in clause 42, page 44, line 18, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) in the case of a serious harm suspensive claim—
(i) the grounds in section 84(1) or (2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or
(ii) the grounds that the person is a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking;”.
Amendment 93, in clause 42, page 44, line 25, leave out
“contain compelling evidence of such ground”
and insert
“set out the grounds for appeal”.
Amendment 94, in clause 42, page 44, line 27, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
Amendment 95, in clause 42, page 44, line 30, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
Amendment 96, in clause 42, page 44, line 34, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
“whether to allow or refuse the appeal”.
Amendment 97, in clause 42, page 44, line 41, leave out subsection (7).
Clause 42 stand part.
Amendment 98, in clause 43, page 45, line 14, leave out from “considers” to the end of subsection (3) and insert
“there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is not bound to fail.”
Amendment 99, in clause 43, page 45, line 20, leave out
“there is compelling evidence that”.
Amendment 100, in clause 43, page 45, line 30, leave out subsection (7).
Clause 43 stand part.
Amendment 101, in clause 44, page 46, line 4, leave out “compelling” and insert “good”.
Amendment 102, in clause 44, page 46, line 5, insert at end
“or if the risk of serious and irreversible harm faced by the person is such that the claim ought to be considered despite it having been made after the end of the claim period”.
Amendment 103, in clause 44, page 46, line 6, leave out “compelling” and insert “good”.
Amendment 104, in clause 44, page 46, line 10, leave out “compelling” and insert “good”.
Amendment 105, in clause 44, page 46, line 12, leave out “compelling” and insert “good”.
Amendment 106, in clause 44, page 46, line 15, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) set out the good reasons for the person not making the claim within the claim period, and”.
Amendment 107, in clause 44, page 46, line 18, at end insert
“unless the Upper Tribunal considers that an oral hearing is necessary to secure that justice is done in the particular case”.
Amendment 108, in clause 44, page 46, line 22, leave out subsection (7).
Amendment 109, in clause 44, page 46, line 30, leave out “4” and insert “7”.
Clause 44 stand part.
Government amendment 67.
Amendment 41, in clause 45, page 47, line 21, at end insert—
“(2A) In cases where subsection (2) applies to a person who has made a protection claim or a human rights claim, that claim may no longer be considered inadmissible.”
This amendment stipulates that where a person has successfully made a suspensive claim against their removal from the UK, any asylum or human rights claim made by that person can no longer be classed as inadmissible.
Government amendment 69 and 68.
Clause 45 stand part.
Amendment 110, in clause 46, page 48, line 1, leave out subsections (3) to (10).
Clause 46 stand part.
Amendment 111, in clause 47, page 48, line 34, leave out “7” and insert “10”.
Amendment 112, in clause 47, page 48, line 41, leave out “23” and insert “28”.
Amendment 113, in clause 47, page 49, line 7, leave out “7” and insert “10”.
Amendment 114, in clause 47, page 49, line 11, leave out “7” and insert “14”.
Amendment 115, in clause 47, page 49, line 18, leave out “7” and insert “10”.
Amendment 116, in clause 47, page 49, line 22, leave out “7” and insert “14”.
Clause 47 stand part.
Amendment 117, in clause 48, page 49, line 32, leave out “or refuse”.
Amendment 118, in clause 48, page 49, line 35, leave out “or refuse”.
Clause 48 stand part.
Amendment 119, in clause 49, page 50, line 17, leave out from “provision” to the end of subsection (1) and insert
“to ensure compliance with interim measures indicated by the European Court of Human Rights as they relate to the removal of persons from the United Kingdom under this Act.”
Amendment 122, in clause 49, page 50, line 30, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not make provision so as to deny or undermine the binding effect of such measures on the United Kingdom under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
This amendment would recognise that the UK is bound to comply with interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights, and would ensure that any regulations made under clause 49 do not undermine this. This amendment is consistent with recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on the Bill of Rights Bill.
Clause 49 stand part.
Amendment 120, in clause 50, page 51, leave out line 21.
Clause 50 stand part.
Amendment 179, in clause 51, page 53, line 3, leave out from “must” to the end of subsection (1) and insert
“within six months of this Act coming into force, secure a resolution from both Houses of Parliament on a target for the number of people entering the United Kingdom each year over the next three years using safe and legal routes, and further resolutions for future years no later than 18 months before the relevant years begin.”
This amendment seeks to enhance Parliament’s role in determining the target number of entrants using safe and legal routes.
Amendment 177, in clause 51, page 53, line 3, leave out “maximum” and insert “target”.
The purpose of this amendment is to set a target, rather than a maximum, number of entrants through safe and legal routes.
Amendment 180, in clause 51, page 53, line 6, leave out “making the regulations” and insert
“securing the resolution mentioned in subsection (1)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 179.
Amendment 173, in clause 51, page 53, line 7, after “authorities”, insert—
“(aa) the United Nations High Commission for Refugees,
(ab) the Scottish Ministers,
(ac) the home affairs select committee of the House of Commons,”.
The purpose of this amendment is to broaden the scope of consultees on setting the target for the number of entrants using safe and legal routes.
Amendment 176, in clause 51, page 53, line 12, leave out “exceeds” and insert
“is greater or less than 10% of”.
The purpose of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State to explain the reasons why, if the target for entrants through safe and legal routes is not met.
Amendment 178, in clause 51, page 53, line 17, after “exceeds” insert “or falls short of”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 176.
Amendment 137, in clause 51, page 53, line 29, at end insert—
““Persons” means a person over the age of 18 on the day of entry into the United Kingdom;”.
This amendment would exclude children from the annual cap on number of entrants.
Amendment 72, in clause 51, page 53, line 31, at end insert
“under section [Safe and legal routes: regulations]”.
Amendment 149, in clause 51, page 53, line 31, at end insert—
“(7) Regulations under subsections (1) and (6) must come into force no later than three months from the date on which this Act comes into force.”
This amendment seeks to require that regulations to establish the cap on the number of people permitted to enter the UK via safe and legal routes must be in effect by three months from this Bill’s entry into force.
Clause 51 stand part.
Government new clause 11—Judges of First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal.
Government new clause 12—Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
New clause 3—Refugee resettlement target—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make an order by statutory instrument setting an annual target for the resettlement of refugees to the United Kingdom.
(2) An order under subsection (1) must set an annual target of no fewer than 10,000 people.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set a resettlement target, by order, each year of at least 10,000 people.
New clause 4—Humanitarian travel permit—
“(1) On an application by a person (“P”) to the appropriate decision-maker for entry clearance, the appropriate decision-maker must grant P entry clearance if satisfied that P is a relevant person.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), P is a relevant person if—
(a) P intends to make a protection claim in the United Kingdom;
(b) P’s protection claim, if made in the United Kingdom, would have a realistic prospect of success; and
(c) there are serious and compelling reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), in deciding whether there are such reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom, the appropriate decision-maker must take into account—
(a) the extent of the risk that P will suffer persecution or serious harm if entry clearance is not granted;
(b) the strength of P’s family and other ties to the United Kingdom;
(c) P’s mental and physical health and any particular vulnerabilities that P has; and
(d) any other matter that the decision-maker thinks relevant.
(4) For the purposes of an application under subsection (1), the appropriate decision-maker must waive any of the requirements in subsection (5) if satisfied that P cannot reasonably be expected to comply with them.
(5) The requirements are—
(a) any requirement prescribed (whether by immigration rules or otherwise) under section 50 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006; and
(b) any requirement prescribed by regulations made under section 5, 6, 7 or 8 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (biometric registration).
(6) No fee may be charged for the making of an application under subsection (1).
(7) An entry clearance granted pursuant to subsection (1) has effect as leave to enter for such period, being not less than six months, and on such conditions as the Secretary of State may prescribe by order.
(8) Upon a person entering the United Kingdom (within the meaning of section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971) pursuant to leave to enter given under subsection (7), that person is deemed to have made a protection claim in the United Kingdom.
(9) In this section—
“appropriate decision-maker” means a person authorised by the Secretary of State by rules made under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 to grant an entry clearance under paragraph (1);
“entry clearance” has the same meaning as in section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971;
“persecution” is to be construed in accordance with its meaning in the Refugee Convention;
“protection claim” in relation to a person, means a claim that to remove them from or require them to leave the United Kingdom would be inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s obligations—
(a) under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and the Protocol to that Convention (“the Refugee Convention”);
(b) in relation to persons entitled to a grant of humanitarian protection; or
(c) under Article 2 or 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 (“the European Convention on Human Rights”); and
“serious harm” means treatment that, if it occurred within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (irrespective of where it will actually occur).”
New clause 6—Safe Passage Pilot Scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument establish a humanitarian travel permit scheme.
(2) The scheme under this section must come into operation within 3 months of the date on which this Act is passed and must remain in operation for at least 12 months.
(3) The scheme under this section must permit persons from designated countries or territories (see subsections (3) and (4) below) to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of making a claim for asylum immediately on their arrival in the United Kingdom.
(4) The regulations under subsection (1) must designate countries or territories from which nationals or citizens may be considered for humanitarian permits under this section.
(5) Countries or territories designated under subsection (4) may include only countries or territories from which the proportion of decided asylum claims which have been upheld in the United Kingdom in the 5 years before the date on which this Act is passed is at least 80 per cent.
(6) Regulations made under subsection (1) are subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.
(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an evaluation of the humanitarian travel permit scheme under this section not later than 15 months from the date on which this Act is passed.”
New clause 7—Refugee family reunion—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for refugee family reunion, in accordance with this section, to come into effect after 21 days.
(2) Before a statement of changes is laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with persons as the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(3) The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection.
(4) In this section, “refugee status” and “humanitarian protection” have the same meaning as in the immigration rules.
(5) In this section, “family members” include—
(a) a person's parent, including adoptive parent;
(b) a person's spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner;
(c) a person's child, including adopted child, who is either—
(i) under the age of 18, or
(ii) under the age of 25 but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum;
(d) a person's sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either—
(i) under the age of 18, or
(ii) under the age of 25, but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—
(i) the importance of maintaining family unity,
(ii) the best interests of a child,
(iii) the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person,
(iv) any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person who was granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or
(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) For the purpose of subsection (5)—
(a) “adopted” and “adoptive” refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules;
(b) “best interests” of a child must be read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
This new clause would make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection.
New clause 10—Safe passage visa scheme—
“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament statements of changes to the immigration rules to make provision for a safe passage visa scheme (referred to in the remainder of this section as the “scheme”).
(2) The purpose of the scheme referred to in subsection (1) is to enable a qualifying person to travel safely to the United Kingdom in order to make an application for asylum (within the meaning given by paragraph 327 of the immigration rules) or a claim for humanitarian protection (within the meaning given by paragraph 327EA of the immigration rules).
(3) A person is a “qualifying person” for the purposes of subsection (2) if the person—
(a) is present in a member State of the European Union when the person makes an application to the scheme;
(b) is not a national of a member State of the European Union, Liechtenstein, Norway or Switzerland; and
(c) would, on securing entry to the United Kingdom, be able to make—
(i) a valid application for asylum in accordance with paragraph 327AB of the immigration rules; or
(ii) a valid claim for humanitarian protection in accordance with paragraph 327EB of the immigration rules,
which would not be clearly unfounded.
(4) For the purposes of determining whether the conditions in subsection (3)(c) above are satisfied, the following are disapplied—
(a) the conditions in subsections (4) and (5) of section 80C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and
(b) the duty in section 2(1) of this Act.
(5) Changes to the immigration rules made under this section must also make provision for—
(a) applications to the scheme, including—
(i) identification of the relevant gov.uk webpage through which applications must be made;
(ii) the provision of relevant biometric data by the person;
(iii) the supplying of relevant information and supporting documentation related to applications;
(iv) confirmation that applications will be without cost to applicants; and
(v) provision for legal aid in relation to applications made to the scheme;
(b) any additional suitability requirements for applications to the scheme, including matters referred to in Part 9 of the immigration rules;
(c) entry requirements for those granted entry clearance under the scheme, including the requirement that the person be provided with a letter by the Secretary of State confirming that the person can enter the United Kingdom;
(d) limitations on the entry clearance granted under the scheme, including provision that clearance is provided solely to enable the person to make an application for asylum or a claim for humanitarian protection and requiring that such an application or claim be made immediately on entry into the United Kingdom; and
(e) appeal rights for those denied entry clearance under the scheme, including legal aid to be made available for persons making such appeals.
(6) The scheme referred to in this section is to be specified as a “safe and legal route” for the purposes of regulations referred to in section 51(6) of this Act.
(7) In this section “immigration rules” means rules under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.”
New clause 13—Safe and legal routes: regulations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify safe and legal routes by which asylum seekers can enter the United Kingdom.
(2) The routes specified must include—
(a) any country-specific refugee and resettlement schemes already in operation on the day this Act is passed; and
(b) safe and legal routes additional to those in subsection (2)(a).
(3) The regulations must set out which routes specified under subsection (2)(b) are available to—
(a) adults, and
(b) unaccompanied children.
(4) The regulations must make provision about—
(a) who is eligible to access the routes specified under subsection (2)(b); and
(b) the means by which such persons may access the routes.”
New clause 17—Safe and legal routes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must within six months of the date on which this Act is passed lay before Parliament a report setting out—
(a) all safe and legal routes which individuals from relevant countries may take in order to apply lawfully for asylum in the United Kingdom; and
(b) the numbers of applicants in each of the last five years who have followed each of those safe and legal routes.
(2) The report must be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3) A person originating from a relevant country may not be removed from the United Kingdom unless a safe and legal route from that country has been set out in a report under subsection (1).
(4) For the purposes of this section “relevant countries” means—
(a) every country or territory not listed in the Schedule; and
(b) in relation to all applicants other than men, those countries listed in the Schedule in respect of men.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set out a comprehensive list of safe and legal routes to the UK from countries not listed in the Schedule, as the latter are by definition countries the Government considers “safe”. A person could not be removed from the UK to a country not listed in the Schedule unless a safe and legal route from that country to the UK exists.
New clause 19—Refugee family reunion—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulations and control ) to make provision for refugee family reunion, in accordance with this section, to come into effect after 21 days.
(2) The statement made under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person—
(a) granted refugee status or humanitarian protection,
(b) resettled through Pathways 1 or 3 of the Afghan Resettlement Scheme, or
(c) who is permitted to enter the United Kingdom through a safe and legal route specified in regulations made under section 51(1) (see also subsection (6) of that section).
(3) In this section, “family members” include a person’s—
(a) parent, if the person was under the age of 18 at the time they made an application for protection status within the meaning of subsection (4) in the United Kingdom, including adoptive parent;
(b) spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner;
(c) child, including adopted child, who is either—
(i) under the age of 18
(ii) aged 18 or over and dependant on the person;
(d) sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either—
(i) under the age of 18, or
(ii) under the age of 25 but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—
(i) the importance of maintaining family unity,
(ii) the best interests of the child,
(iii) the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person,
(iv) any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person who was granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or
(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) For the purpose of subsection (3)—
(a) “adopted” and “adoptive” refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules;
(b) “best interests” of a child is to be read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention of the Rights of the Child.”
New clause 23—Asylum processing for low grant-rate countries—
“(1) Within 60 days of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must issue regulations establishing an expedited asylum process for applicants from low grant-rate countries who have arrived in the UK without permission.
(2) Within this section, “low grant-rate countries” are defined are countries with a grant rate for asylum applicants below 50% in the 12 months preceding the initial decision being taken.”
This new clause requires the Home Secretary to establish a process to fast-track asylum claims from safe countries.
New clause 24—Safe and legal routes: family reunion for children—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act enters into force, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the ‘immigration rules’) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provision for regulation and control) to make provision for the admission of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from European Union member states to the United Kingdom for the purposes of family reunion.
(2) The rules must, as far as is practicable, include provisions in line with the rules formerly in force in the United Kingdom under the Dublin III Regulation relating to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.”
This new clause seeks to add a requirement for the Secretary of State to provide safe and legal routes for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children with close family members in the UK, in line with rules previous observed by the UK as part of the Dublin system.
New clause 25—International co-operation—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which the Illegal Migration Act 2023 comes into force, publish and lay before Parliament a framework for new agreements to facilitate co- operation with the governments of neighbouring countries, EU Member States and relevant international organisations on—
(a) the removal from the United Kingdom of persons who have made protection claims declared inadmissible by the Secretary of State;
(b) the prevention of unlawful entry to the United Kingdom from neighbouring countries;
(c) the prosecution and conviction of persons involved in facilitating illegal entry to the United Kingdom from neighbouring countries;
(d) securing access for the relevant authorities to international databases for the purposes of assisting law enforcement and preventing illegal entry to the United Kingdom; and
(e) establishing controlled and managed safe and legal routes.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) “neighbouring countries” means countries which share a maritime border with the United Kingdom;
(b) “relevant international organisations” means—
9. Europol;
10. Interpol;
11. Frontex;
12. the European Union; and
13. any other organisation which the Secretary of State may see fit to consult with.
(c) “relevant authorities” means—
(i) police forces;
(ii) the National Crime Agency;
(iii) the Crown Prosecution Service; and
(iv) any other organisation which the Secretary of State may see fit to include within the definition.
(d) “international databases” means—
(i) The Eurodac fingerprint database;
(ii) the Schengen Information System; and;
(iii) any other database which the Secretary of State may see fit to include within the definition.
(e) “controlled and managed safe and legal routes” includes—
(i) family reunion for unaccompanied asylum- seeking children with close family members settled in the United Kingdom; and
(ii) other resettlement schemes.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a framework on new agreements to facilitate co-operation with the governments of neighbouring countries and relevant international organisations on matters related to the removal of people from the United Kingdom.
New clause 26—Equality Impact—
“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an equality impact assessment of the measures in sections 37 to 51 of this Act with, in particular, an assessment of the extent to which people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 will be particularly affected by the changes to legal proceedings and by the cap on numbers of entrants using safe and legal routes.”
Government amendment 66.
Amendment 73, in clause 57, page 57, line 2, at end insert—
“(o) section [Safe and legal routes: regulations]”.
Amendment 74, in clause 57, page 57, line 7, at end insert—
“(7) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) until regulations specifying safe and legal routes have been made under section [Safe and legal routes: regulations].”
Amendment 75, in clause 1, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(i) establishes and defines safe and legal routes to be open to refugees and asylum seekers with a legitimate claim to be able to come to the United Kingdom legally.”
Amendment 131, in clause 1, page 2 , line 29, at end insert—
“(6) Provision made by or by virtue of this Act must be read and given effect to notwithstanding any judgement, interim measure or other decision, of the European Court of Human Rights, or other international court or tribunal; and notwithstanding any international law obligation.”
The intention of this amendment is that the provisions of the Bill should operate notwithstanding any orders of the Strasbourg court or any other international body.
Amendment 132, in clause 1, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(7) Section 4 (declaration of incompatibility), section 6 (acts of public authorities) and section 10 (power to take remedial action) of the Human Rights Act 1998 do not apply in relation to provision made by or by virtue of this Act.”
This amendment would disapply other provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 in addition to that already disapplied by clause 1(5) of the Bill.
Sir William Cash
I voted for the Bill on Second Reading because it was most emphatically going in the right direction, but I emphasised that we wanted to be sure that it would actually work in the national interest by preventing illegal immigration. The Bill is getting better with the amendments proposed by the Government today, for which all credit to the Home Secretary, the Immigration Minister and the Prime Minister. The number of Back Benchers who are supporting our constructive amendments, including mine, is growing.
This Bill to stop the boats is both legally and politically necessary, because illegal migration is out of control, partly because of a failure to distinguish between genuine refugees and others who are illegal and economic migrants. This is not only a real problem in the UK; increasingly, it is a real global and European problem as well, as can be seen from the dreadful tragedies in the Mediterranean in the last few weeks and months.
This legislation sets out a fair regime for dealing with people who have arrived here illegally. It gives them a reasonable but limited ability to raise any exceptional reasons as to why it is unsafe for them to be sent to Rwanda or another safe country. These are known as suspensive claims, and they are clearly defined in clause 37. Those claims ensure that we are compliant with our international obligations and that we would not send somebody overseas if they were not medically fit to fly or if they would face persecution in the destination country.
The success of this scheme depends on it working predictably and quickly. Those who come over on small boats need to know that they will not be able to stay here and that the vast majority of them will be removed to Rwanda or elsewhere. If courts intervene in unexpected ways, it removes the deterrence and the whole scheme breaks down, along with our ability to control our own borders.
However, this is also a procedural, legal and judicial issue, because under the Human Rights Act 1998, the UK courts have not been given suitable guidance by Parliament via statute to draw the appropriate boundaries that are needed in the national interest. As I pointed out on Second Reading, for example, the international refugee convention does not apply between the UK and France, because France is not a country where asylum seekers fear persecution, yet the European Commission is by all accounts refusing to make legal changes to EU law to allow returns of illegal asylum seekers from the UK to France. There are also provisions setting out other named safe countries. I ought to remind House what happened when the Dublin regulation was torn up by Angela Merkel and 600,000 or so refugees were allowed to pour into Europe.
When the Human Rights Act was passed in 1998, I was in the House of Commons. Human rights lawyers and activists claimed that the Act was a “constitutional Rubicon” enabling the courts to override parliamentary sovereignty. This was a massively overstated and exaggerated claim that is refuted by clear statements, which I hope those on the Labour Front Bench will take on board, made by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in the House of Lords on its Second Reading on 3 November 1997. He said of the legislation:
“It maximises the protection of human rights without trespassing on parliamentary sovereignty.”
He also stated that
“the remedial action will not retrospectively make unlawful an act which was a lawful act—lawful since sanctioned by statute.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1229.]
But the question remained: what does statute provide?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I hope that colleagues will bear in mind the fact that I cannot put time limits on speeches during Committee stage. I will prioritise those Members who have amendments on the Order Paper. I call the shadow Minister.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I start by reiterating the point that I made in closing the debate on Second Reading: we on the Labour Benches are absolutely clear that we must bring the dangerous channel crossings to an end, and that we must destroy the criminal activity of the people smugglers. Indeed, Labour has a five-point plan to do just that. It is a plan based on common sense, hard graft and quiet diplomacy, as opposed to the headline-chasing gimmicks that are the stock in trade of those on the Government Benches.
Our opposition to the Bill—and our introduction of the amendments on which I am about to speak—is based on the fact that it will serve only to make it harder for the Government to achieve their stated aims. The central premise of the Bill is that it will act as a deterrent by banning the right to asylum and replacing it with blanket detention and removals policies. For a deterrent to be effective, it must be credible, and the Bill fails the credibility test because there is nowhere near enough capacity to detain asylum seekers in the UK, there is no returns agreement with the EU, and the Rwandan Government are agreeing to commit to take only thousands at some unspecified future date. That means the boats will keep on coming, the backlog will keep on growing, and the hotels will keep on filling, all of which leaves the House in the somewhat surreal position of debating a Bill that everyone knows is not really worth the paper on which it is written, and yet we must all go through the motions and pretend that we are participating in a meaningful process.
Nevertheless, I assure you, Dame Rosie, and the entire House that Labour Members will do all that we can to amend and improve the Bill in a concerted effort to limit the damage that it will inflict on the international reputation of our country, on the cohesion of our communities, and on the health and wellbeing of those who have come to our country in the hope of sanctuary from the violence and persecution from which they are fleeing.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She points to a broader failing, and to a clear indication of the shambles and chaos that we have within the broader asylum system. The backlog in the system is out of control, there are massive safeguarding issues, and really it is just more grist to the mill for the people smugglers and the traffickers. That is why this issue has to be addressed.
To sum up, this is a dog’s breakfast of a Bill, and this debate feels like something of a charade, because everyone knows that not only is the Bill unworkable, but it is not even intended to work. Nevertheless, we hope that colleagues across the House will support our amendments and new clauses in the Division Lobby this evening, because let us be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker: Ministers know full well that this Bill is an entirely counterproductive piece of legislation, but they do not really care. In fact, they will be more than happy to see it failing, because then they can blame our civil servants, the EU, the lawyers, the judges, the Labour party, the football pundits, or whoever they can think of.
Why are the Government doing this? Well, the answer is staring us in the face: they know that come the general election, they cannot stand on their record of 13 years of failure, so instead they will whip up division, stoke anxiety and fire up the culture wars. Our constituents know where the buck stops, though. They want solutions, not soundbites; they want the Labour party’s common sense, hard graft and quiet diplomacy, not government by gimmick; and when this Bill fails, they will know that only a Labour Government’s five-point plan for asylum will stop the dangerous crossings, fix our broken asylum system, and get our country back on track after 13 years of Tory failure.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Forgive me: I should have reminded Members at the beginning of the debate that when we are in Committee, it is customary to either call me by name or address me as Madam Chair, rather than Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a very common mistake, don’t worry; I should have reminded Members at the beginning of the debate.
I call Tim Loughton.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Thank you very much, Dame Rosie. I rise to speak to six amendments that stand in my name and those of right hon. and hon. colleagues: new clauses 13 and 19 and amendments 72 to 75. I am glad to hear the Minister refer to his support for safe and legal routes, because that is the basis of these amendments. I look forward to some warm words from him later on.
This is a very heated subject and a very controversial Bill, so I will start with something that I hope we can all agree on: coming across the channel in small boats is the worst possible way to gain entry to the United Kingdom. We need to be ruthless against the people smugglers who benefit from that miserable trade. We want to continue to offer safe haven for those genuinely escaping danger and persecution, and in a sustainable way. That is why safe and legal routes are the obvious antidote to that problem. The migration system, as it stands, is broken. Whatever we think about this Bill, it is only one part of the solution that we need to bring forward, and the Home Office needs to beef up the processing times and the removals of those who do not have a legitimate claim. We also need more return agreements.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful for that intervention from my right hon. and learned Friend, with his huge legal expertise and experience from his former roles. That is the point. We need to isolate the bogus asylum seekers who are paying people smugglers. We do that by making it clear that we are open to genuine cases of people fleeing danger, and there is a legitimate, practical, and usable route for them. If people do not qualify for that, they should not try to get in a boat because they stand no chance of having their claims upheld if they make it across. I am just trying to achieve a balance. If Members want the Bill to go through, we need to have safe and legal routes in it to make it properly balanced. If you do not like the Bill but you want safe and legal routes, you need to support the Bill to get those safe and legal routes. This is mutually beneficial to those on either side of the argument on the Bill.
New clause 19 outlines how a refugee family reunion scheme would work. It includes a wide definition of close family members, including people who are adopted. Again, this is nothing new but it is a generous scheme that would do what it says on the tin.
Amendment 74 is an important consideration. The Government have said that they want the Bill to go through to be able to clamp down on the small boats. I have no problem with that. There are some things in here that are not quite as moderate as I would like, but I think it is necessary for the Bill to go through so I am trying to improve it. However, the Government have said that they will consult on safe and legal routes—we need to consult on safe and legal routes because local authorities, and others, will bear the brunt of how we accommodate many of these candidates—and then come up with some safe and legal routes. That is not good enough. The two sides of the Bill must be contemporaneous. We must not to be able to bring in these tough measures until those safe and legal routes are operational so people can have the option to go down the safe and legal route, rather than rely on people smugglers.
The Government will say, “We need to consult.” Well, start that now because we need to consult with local authorities about how we get more people out of hotels now and into sustainable accommodation for the long term. The Government should be getting on with the consulting now, so that when the Bill eventually goes through—I suspect it may take a while to get through the other place—those safe and legal routes are up and running and ready to go. So amendment 74 is important.
Amendment 75 would add safe and legal routes as one of the purposes of the Bill in clause 1. Clause 1 is all about clamping down on illegal migration—quite right—but it should also be about the balance of providing those safe and legal routes. I want to put that in clause 1, at the start of the Bill. Amendments 72 and 73 are contingent on all of the above.
That is all I am trying to do. Lots of people are trying to misrepresent and cause mischief about the Bill, and in some cases on safe and legal routes. I will end on my own experience when I appeared on the BBC “Politics South East” two weeks ago. I was talking about safe and legal routes and I was challenged, “Why are you supporting this Bill when you were so keen on safe and legal routes and challenged the Home Secretary?” I said, “Because this Bill contains provisions for safe and legal routes.” It does. It talks about “safe and legal routes”, capping numbers and everything else. The following week on the same programme, with no recourse to me, the presenter read out an email from the Home Office, having got in contact with it, unbeknownst to me, to ask about my claim on safe and legal routes. The Home Office apparently replied:
“Nothing in the Bill commits the Government to opening new safe and legal routes or increasing the numbers.”
That was news to me, news to Home Office Ministers—[Laughter.] Hold on, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) may not be laughing in a minute. I was accused of being misleading. When I challenged that, it turned out that the Home Office communiqué actually said that the routes to be included as part of the approach set out for the new Bill would be set out in the regulations, which would depend on a number of factors, including the safe and legal routes that the Government offered at the time the regulations were prepared and, that, as the Prime Minister said, we would “get a grip” on illegal migration and then bring in more safe and legal routes. So actually that is provided for in the Bill.
The BBC completely misrepresented my comments and, I am glad to say, yesterday issued an apology and gave me a right of reply. Let us stick to the facts. Let us not get hung up on all the prejudice about this. We have a problem in this country, which is that last year just under 46,000 people came across in the most inappropriate and dangerous manner. We do not have the capacity to deal with people in those numbers, many of whom have unsustainable claims, and we have to get to grips with it. The Bill is a genuine attempt to get to grips with that issue. It would be much more palatable and workable if it contained a balance that has safe and legal routes written into it that come in at the same stage. I would challenge the Opposition to say that they have a better scheme for how we deal with this dreadful problem. Simply voting against all the measures in the Bill is not going to help anyone.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the SNP spokesperson.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Do we support international human rights protections or do we not? Are we steadfast in our adherence to the European convention on human rights, the refugee convention and other international treaties we have signed up to, or are we not? To me, it is extraordinary that those simple questions are even apparently subject to debate, but those simple questions are precisely what this appalling Bill is asking of us, including in the clauses we are debating today.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been clear that the Bill breaches the refugee convention. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has written to us all today to warn it is:
“essential that Members of Parliament…prevent legislation that is incompatible with the UK’s international obligations being passed”.
Our view is that, because the Bill rides roughshod over international human rights law, it should be scrapped entirely. Short of that, the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and colleagues try to restore at least some level of respect for international law.
This is not only an abstract issue of international law. This is about the Afghan lieutenant we read about in The Independent on Sunday yesterday, who flew 30 combat missions against the Taliban and was praised by his coalition supervisor as being a “patriot to his nation”. Now he is in a hotel and threatened with removal to Rwanda. It is about LGBT people fleeing outrageous criminal laws in Uganda, whose Parliament last week voted for further draconian legislation, imposing endless imprisonment and even death sentences on LGBT people, as well as on those who do not report them to the police or even rent a room to them. This is all about trafficking victims, victims of torture and many more vulnerable people. The question is: are we committed to meeting our international obligations to those people? For me and my SNP colleagues, the answer must clearly be yes, but the Bill says no.
We therefore absolutely oppose clause 49 and the Government’s attempt to undermine the role of the Court of Human Rights. Clause 49 empowers the Home Secretary to ignore, and even to compel our courts to ignore, interim measures from the Court. It is said to be a placeholder clause, but here we are debating it with only a select bunch of Conservative Back Benchers apparently any the wiser as to what the Government’s intentions are with respect to it. The clause, as drafted, is totally unacceptable, but so, too, is the way the Government are treating Parliament. As the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights states in his letter to us:
“interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights, and their binding nature, are integral to ensuring that member states fully and effectively fulfil their human rights obligations”.
We therefore believe the clause should be taken out, or that either our amendment 119 or amendment 122, tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), should be supported to ensure that power is used consistently with the convention. The Prime Minister should stop dancing to the tune of the anti-ECHR minority. He should have the guts to put international human rights before internal party management.
I turn next to safe legal routes, which many amendments and new clauses understandably address. The lack of them and, in the case of the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme, their poor and slow implementation, is clearly a contributor to irregular arrivals. Expanding them would help to tackle that issue, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) eloquently set out. Clause 51, as it stands, is completely inadequate. It provides for a limit not to be exceeded, rather than providing a target to aim for, and it allows the Home Secretary, instead of Parliament, to set the definition of “safe legal route”. Our amendment 179 and related amendments replace the cap with a target, and a longer-term target too, and seek to improve Parliament’s role in setting that goal and holding the Home Secretary to account for her efforts to meet it. We support other new clauses and amendments that seek to achieve similar aims. We support the various new clauses that highlight particular safe legal routes, such as the humanitarian travel permit, safe passage visa schemes, refugee family reunion and Dublin-style safe legal routes for children in the EU. The key point is, as has been said, that these routes should be a priority and an urgent part of the overall response, not an afterthought to be looked at a little way down the line.
On the remaining clauses relating to legal proceedings, frankly, most of the provisions in the Bill essentially dehumanise people who seek protection here, so that no matter what horrors they have endured, their individual circumstances are to be ignored and their ability to access rights and protections set out in international treaties is to be decimated. Instead, they are to be detained, locked up and either removed or left in permanent limbo. The clauses on legal proceedings buttress that regime by seeking to snuff out the ability of anyone to get to a courtroom to challenge what is going on before their removal takes place.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Lady needs to be quite careful with her language when she says “your Government” and so on.
Yasmin Qureshi
Thank you for reminding me, Dame Rosie.
The Conservative Government have had control for the last 13 years, but they have not been able to deal with this. Instead of making proper constructive proposals, they have gone for the best headline in the Daily Mail—or should I say the “Daily Hate”? They do not think it is worth it. This legislation is absolutely horrendous. I am really sad that we are here again. A few years ago, we had the Nationality and Borders Bill and others. With every such Bill, it is said that we are going to control illegal migration. But guess what: nothing happens. It is all hot air; it is all smoke and mirrors. It is trying to fool the people of this country that you are trying to deal with something when you know you are not doing—
The First Deputy Chairman
Yes, but the hon. Lady needs to stop referring to “you”, which means me.
Yasmin Qureshi
I am sorry, Dame Rosie.
Many Members have spoken about various safe routes. Many suggestions have been made about how to deal with the small boats. Colleagues have spoken about the legal side of it. If there is any humanity in this Government, they should think about withdrawing the Bill and actually dealing with the small boats, and will they please stop trying to appease populist sentiment?
Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill
Rosie Winterton ExcerptsFriday 24th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 View all Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 March 2023 - (24 Mar 2023)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before we get on to proceedings, I remind Members of the differences between Report and Third Reading. The scope of the debate on Report is the amendments that I have selected. The scope of the debate on Third Reading, to follow, will be the whole Bill as it stands after Report. Members may wish to consider those points before deciding at which stage or stages they want to catch my eye, to ensure that their speeches are relevant to each stage of consideration of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Guidance
“(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to—
(a) chief officers of police,
(b) the chief constable of the British Transport Police Force,
(c) the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence Police, and
(d) the chief constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary,
about the offence in section 4B of the Public Order Act 1986 (intentional harassment, alarm or distress on account of sex).
(2) The guidance must in particular include guidance about the reasonable conduct defence in section 4A(3)(b) of that Act.
(3) The Secretary of State may revise guidance issued under this section.
(4) The Secretary of State must arrange for guidance issued under this section to be published.
(5) A chief officer of police or a chief constable mentioned in subsection (1) must have regard to guidance issued under this section.”—(Greg Clark.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the police about the new offence in section 4B of the Public Order Act 1986. It also requires that guidance to include provision about the application of the reasonable conduct defence in section 4A(3)(b) of that Act.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, after “4A(1)” insert “primarily”.
Amendment 3, page 1, line 7, leave out “because of” and insert “due to”.
Amendment 7, page 1, line 8, leave out “(or presumed sex)”.
Amendment 8, page 1, line 10, leave out ““presumed” means presumed by A;”.
Amendment 4, page 1, line 14, after “not—” insert— “(za) A is a man or a woman,”.
Amendment 5, page 1, line 16, leave out “because of” and insert “due to”.
Amendment 6, page 1, line 16, after “other” insert “subsidiary”.
Amendment 1, in clause 3, page 2, line 20, after “1” insert “, (Guidance)”.
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Amendment 9, page 2, line 20, leave out from “on” to the end of line 21 and insert “1 August 2023”.
Greg Clark
In line with your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will address my new clause and the amendment in my name specifically, and I will also touch on the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). I will not rehearse the reasons for the Bill. We have had a substantial debate on Second Reading and in Committee, and I hope it may be possible to say more on Third Reading.
New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the police about the new offence proposed in the Bill, and that guidance must include, but is not limited to, guidance on the defence of reasonable conduct that is already contained in the Public Order Act 1986.
During our debate in Committee, some Members were understandably concerned that the perpetrator of an act of deliberate harassment of a person on the grounds of their sex could escape the consequences of their actions by asserting that they thought their behaviour was reasonable. Some Members thought there was a risk that the police might be put off from taking the offence seriously, because of that potential defence. In fact, in the Public Order Act, reasonableness is not in the eye of the accused. Simply saying that behaviour that was intentionally designed to cause alarm or distress was reasonable does not provide a “get out of jail” card. Having clear guidance on this point would ensure that the matter is crystal clear to the police and all the authorities.
The proposed requirement for statutory guidance therefore provides that clarity, but it is not limited to that; the guidance can include other matters, should that prove desirable in future. The guidance would be addressed to the police, as is obvious from the terms of the new clause, but in practice its use would be wider than that, and would include the Crown Prosecution Service. That is because statutory guidance, once issued, is in practice taken by all parties to be authoritative. Indeed, there is no point in having separate guidance for the police, the CPS and any other body.
This is far from the only occasion when guidance is formally issued and addressed to one particular audience, rather than being proliferated to multiple actors. For example, statutory guidance within the Stalking Protection Act 2019 is formally issued to the police, but was drawn up in consultation with other statutory partners, including the Crown Prosecution Service. I envisage and hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the same approach will be taken in this case, and that the CPS would be involved in drawing up the guidance to which my new clause refers.
It seems to me, reflecting on the debate we had in Committee, that an amendment that guidance must be issued and must include, inter alia, statutory requirements on the interpretation of reasonable conduct, is a pragmatic and practical way of responding to the points made in the debate. I am delighted that new clause 1 has attracted widespread support, including that of the Government, whose assistance in drafting it I grateful acknowledge.
Sir Christopher Chope
I have tried to avoid—and have done so up to now—getting into the debate about the difference between sex and gender. I will not rise to my hon. Friend’s bait to try to develop arguments around that. The Bill, commendably, is specific to sex, and it leaves out gender. I will leave it at that if that is all right with my hon. Friend.
This brings me to the conclusion of my remarks. I will not say what my intentions are in relation to these amendments until I have heard from the Minister, which I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will think is a reasonable approach to take.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
First, let me say how pleased I am to see the Bill finally making its way through the House today. I thank all of the campaigners and people who have worked tirelessly on this issue, including, obviously, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) with all of his engagement, the civil servants who have been working with him, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and the many other Members who have contributed to discussions on this subject for such a long time.
As we near the end of Women’s History Month 2023, I can say that the Bill is a welcome step in the right direction. I will, if I may, pull us back to the main subject at issue, which is around public sexual harassment. It does remain a major problem in our society. Plan International UK found that three quarters of girls and young women aged 12 to 21 experienced a form of sexual harassment in a public space in their lifetime. Those numbers increase for disabled women and girls, and for women and girls from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background. The impact of this harassment is shocking. Perhaps it is worth reminding the House about that as we discuss the Bill. In 2020, the Girl Guides found out that 80% of girls and young women feel unsafe when they are out on their own, increasing to 96% of young women aged 17 and 18.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Just a reminder that, at this stage, we are discussing the amendment. There will be, I am sure, a very good opportunity on Third Reading for the wider issues, but at this point we are on Report. If the hon. Lady prefers to wait to Third Reading, that is absolutely fine.
Anneliese Dodds
In that case, I will just say that I mentioned those points in relation to new clause 1 and the other amendments. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has set out very clearly the rationale, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, spelling out why we require guidance—we all hope that it will come speedily—but also why it is important that the legislation is consistent with other Acts in this area. I hope that the House will bear those remarks in mind when deciding how to vote.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is making some very good points, with only one exception: I think that the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has had a good record in this general area. When it comes to the prison population, however, is it not about time that we did something about the 1,000 young people who are convicted under joint enterprise? That could open up so much capacity in our prisons.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I will also speak briefly and begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) for securing the passage of this Bill. It has been great to hear it being warmly supported in the House today.
I rise primarily to pay tribute to a group of girls who really helped me understand this issue. Sandbach High School is not in my constituency—it is in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce)— but she kindly agreed for me to visit, because so many of my constituents go to school there. It is a girls school, and I had a session with a group of girls who put across to me how frequently this was an issue for them, even at this point in their lives, and how commonplace it was for them to experience harassment.
I also pay tribute to a charity in Crewe called Motherwell, founded by Kate Blakemore. What we have discussed today is recognising that this issue sits within a bigger picture of how we think about and treat women and girls in society. Motherwell is a women and girls charity dedicated to empowering women in all sorts of different ways, including looking at issues of their own safety. That organisation and that group of girls helped me understand this issue. I am pleased to be here today to pay tribute to them, and to my right hon. Friend, in supporting the Bill.
Greg Clark
With the leave of the House, I will briefly thank all those who have aided the passage of the Bill.
I start by thanking my constituents who, over the years, have shared with me their experiences and encouraged me to bring forward this legislation, supported by campaigning groups from across the country.
To turn those intentions into prospective legislation, one requires advice and support. I am grateful to officials and Ministers in the Home Office, including the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and the current Home Secretary and her ministerial team.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), who has seen the Bill through its previous stages, is indisposed today. I want to put on record my thanks to her and to my right hon. Friend the Minister for very ably picking up the brief today and responding during the Report stage. I am grateful to him for that.
I thank the excellent Clerks of the House. In particular, I would like to single out the Clerk responsible for private Members’ Bills, Anne-Marie Griffiths, who does a tremendous job, supported by her very able colleagues. We are grateful for the advice that she has given.
Finally, I thank the no less able Whips on both sides, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). She has developed a reputation for sensing the mood of the House. In a House that can sometimes be a forum for contention, my hon. Friend has great skill in being able to bring us together on occasions such as this one.
Having put on record my thanks, I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Anne-Marie Griffiths was here earlier and she will be back, but we will ensure that she is aware of those kind words.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Illegal Migration Bill
Rosie Winterton ExcerptsMonday 13th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
My constituency is the most diverse in the entire country; 80% of our community has heritage from a different part of the world. Many of my constituents, including the multiple hotels that we have holding asylum seekers and refugees, welcome those people into our community. In Ilford we embrace humanity and the differences in our community. We recognise the struggles that we all face, and that blaming each other for the ills that our country faces is not the right way forward. Our local churches helped Afghan and Iraqi refugees find Korans so that they could practise their prayer. It is wrong for Conservative Members to say that this is not about our constituents.
Let me be absolutely clear—I am speaking on behalf of my constituents—that the Bill is the most inhumane and unjust piece of legislation. It will do nothing to solve any of the problems that the Home Secretary outlined today. If it passes, it will effectively criminalise asylum in this country and allow the Government to commit flagrant human rights abuses without any real consequence. The United Nations says that the Bill would breach the refugee convention and undermine a long-standing humanitarian tradition of which the British people and I are proud, instead punishing people fleeing persecution and conflict—conflict that is often the consequence of decisions taken in this place and by our country, historically or in more recent times.
In the short time that I have, I want to tackle the incendiary rhetoric from this Government. It is the playbook for the next election from a desperate Government. I have spent a large part of my life fighting the far right, not just in Barking and Dagenham but across the country. Some of the language that I have heard over the past months and days has reminded me of the language that people like Nick Griffin used to describe people. It is appalling, it is un-British, it is unacceptable, and it needs to be challenged.
In a recent report, Hope not Hate said that there is growing alignment between the language of the traditional far right and the language used by the mainstream right. Those on the Conservative Benches are supposed to be the mainstream right, but I look at that side of the House and it is just like a turbocharged UKIP. You should be ashamed of yourselves for this Bill.
Sam Tarry
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will finish simply by saying that if the desire is to prevent children from making these dangerous journeys and to protect them, the solution is clear: more safe routes for resettlement, and expanding and improving the existing family reunion schemes.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member knows that you do not address directly other hon. Members.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It is obvious that not everyone will get in. The final speakers—they know who they are—have said that they will try to take two minutes, which means that I can get four more speakers in. David Simmonds will lead the way.
Public Order Bill
Rosie Winterton ExcerptsTuesday 7th March 2023
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Order Act 2023 View all Public Order Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 7 March 2023 - (7 Mar 2023)
Jon Trickett
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He is right that the British state claimed historically to be the bastion of our liberty, but today it is proposed that it become an engine of our suppression. An authoritarian state is being created here, and it is not acceptable.
When I said earlier that these rights go back centuries, I was not exaggerating. The right to freedom of association—for people to meet with whoever they choose, on the streets or anywhere else—is part of the very structure of our society. The rights of free speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly were built into our constitution for generations and centuries. They will all be fundamentally disrupted by this piece of legislation.
Habeas corpus, the right of individuals not to be intervened on by the state or its apparatuses without good reason, goes back centuries. Protection against arbitrary imprisonment by the state was incorporated in the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. The Bill of Rights 1689 went through this House of Commons, and now the House of Commons is being asked to surrender at least part of the principle of habeas corpus, and on no suspicion whatsoever. I add that point one more time, because it is extraordinary that that is what is being said.
It may be said, “Well, in the light of what’s happening in the country, with the protest movements and so on, we need new powers.” Just a minute, though—will the Minister in responding perhaps tell us why a breach of the King’s peace, or the Riot Act 1714, or other items of legislation which have gone through this House and have protected our liberties over the centuries, might not be appropriately used? A breach of the peace is an act of common law going back before the year 1000, to King Alfred—that is how deep the attachment to liberty is in our country, yet it is about to be broken.
The Justices of the Peace Act 1361, preventing riotous and barbaric behaviour that disturbs the peace of the King, also went through this Parliament. Why is it suddenly necessary now, after more than 1,000 years of our history, to empower the state to operate in these ways? We have many other Acts; the Riot Act was read on the steps of the town hall, I think, in my home city of Leeds, against the gas workers who were on strike in the 19th century. In Featherstone in my constituency, the Riot Act was read and people were killed. All they were doing was striking to protect their wages and incomes. How can it be that there is no legislation in place that might deal with the kind of actions we can envisage taking place? Why is it that suddenly, in this century, we are about to abandon 1,000 years of our history? I will come to an explanation in a moment.
I have spoken to Lords amendment 6, but I will briefly speak to Lords amendment 1 and the attempt to define what the Government mean by “serious disruption”. The amendment is now being replaced by the Home Secretary, who is proposing amendment (a) in lieu. The amendment in lieu is quite astonishing. It suggests that anybody may be arrested if they have taken action that might, in more than a minor degree, affect work or supply of goods and services. Subsection (2)(b) of the Home Secretary’s amendment in lieu refers to the following activities: the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel, communication, places of worship, transport, education and health. It so happens that those are the areas where there is industrial action—where people are taking action to protect their living standards, a right they have had for more than a century.
Why is the list that has been provided to this House in this amendment proposing those particular areas of action? How can minor disruption to services now be regarded as a criminal offence? This will provoke a breakdown in trust between the police force, the state itself and people taking action. I represent a mining community. I went there just over 27 years ago, and during the strike—[Interruption.] Are you trying to say something, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I was just trying to communicate that at some point we need to be aware that there are quite a few speakers. That is all.
Jon Trickett
I appreciate your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am about to finish on this point.
The definition that the Lords tried to introduce was not perfect but it was far better than the amendment before us. We have a failing political and economic system, and consent has broken down across wide parts of the country. There are two ways of moving forward: either we try to produce a just and more equal society or we move from consent to repression. That is where this Government are taking us, and it is a seriously bad step. This legislation, and certainly the amendments, ought not to go through.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It will be clear that quite a few hon. and right hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I would suggest that colleagues keep to about eight minutes to start with. I will not need to put a time limit on if we can think of each other in a comradely fashion—that would be great. I call David Davis.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Does she share my frustration at the number of men who have stood up in this Chamber and pontificated when they will never have to make that choice? They are telling women that they should put up with being harassed when they are just seeking healthcare. [Interruption.] I have heard a number of men in this Chamber shouting down women, but perhaps they should pipe down and listen to our perspectives, because none of them will ever have to go through it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It is important that we do not personalise the issue. That goes for everybody in the Chamber.
Dr Huq
I completely accept what the hon. Lady just said. As a woman, Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that, if any woman present in the Chamber were walking down a dark alley, they would shudder if someone was there. That feeling is magnified x amount of times for women having that difficult and distressing procedure when people determined to stop them having a termination are in their path. Those people can have their say, but let us move them away from the clinic door.
Buffer zones are not outlandish. They exist in France, Spain, Canada, Australia and some US states. In Ireland, they are legislating on them at the moment. We will be out of step with the rest of the UK, because a Bill is being brought in in Northern Ireland and a private Member’s Bill will become law this year in Scotland.
Eddie Hughes
The point that the hon. Gentleman has just made is incredibly important. In the circumstances that I was talking about previously, the lady was arrested in Birmingham and the police arrive to interrogate and subsequently arrest her. Given the other crimes that were going on in Birmingham at that time, it is important to see that the police had clearly determined that the most important thing they had to do at that particular time was not to deal with knife crime or with people stealing tools out of other people’s vans to stop them earning a living, but to arrest and interrogate a woman who was silently praying outside a clinic that was closed. Surely that shows a sense of complete disproportionality on the part of the police.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It is important that interventions are short, and I know that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) will want to come to the conclusion of his remarks now, as he has been speaking for 10 minutes.
Ian Paisley
I will conclude now, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I agree with the point that the hon. Member has made. The arrest of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was atrocious. It sends out a terrible message to women and to anyone who wishes to engage in silent prayer in this nation. I am glad that that attempt at a conviction was overturned by the court and thrown out. It is unfortunate that she has been arrested again today by another police officer saying, “What are you thinking? What are you praying?” That is wrong, and we need to stand up against that sort of harassment.
Robin Millar
The hon. Member has clearly read my notes, because I am coming to that exact point. In response to her earlier comments, I also say that I do not seek to put myself in the place of a woman who is seeking the services of an abortion clinic. I respect the fact that that is an incredibly difficult moment—a sensitive and vital moment—and I cannot seek to understand that from my lived experience, as she said.
Equally, however, as the hon. Member said, it is the presence of the person in that place that is objectionable, because we cannot know what silent prayer is. Hon. Members may well be silently praying that I wrap up my remarks so that we can move to the votes; I have no way of knowing. Prayer is not necessarily marked by a folding of hands, a closing of eyes, a bowing of the head or a thumbing of a rosary, and it is not necessarily marked by kneeling.
Indeed, the evidence from the abortion clinic with a buffer zone around it where the arrest took place is that the person was standing. When challenged, she was arrested on the basis that she was praying silently. There were no placards or graphic images, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton, and there was no shouting—there was nothing. That is the point of concern, because what is the basis for the arrest if it is just the presence of someone who is perhaps in the habit of praying silently?
The importance of the issue comes down to three things: thoughts, words and deeds. If our freedom to think, our freedom to speak and our freedom to act exist on a continuum, where we put the marker of where a freedom ends is a statement about our society. Do we place that marker just beyond the freedom to speak, effectively saying that we must watch our speech and what we say? I think we have already established through the laws of the land that we do that, because we do not allow people to speak freely without consideration.
What we have seen, however, through the implementation of existing local laws that the Bill seeks to make national, is an interpretation that says that we do not have freedom of thought. That is the point of my contribution and of the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South. Specifically, I support them because first, they are a helpful and sadly necessary clarification that we in this country enjoy freedom of thought and the freedom to practise silent prayer; and secondly, when we make laws, it is incumbent on us to pause to test the need for further legislation before introducing unnecessary legislation.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I rise to speak on Lords amendments 1, 5, 6 and 20, beginning with the definition of “serious disruption”.
Before I go into the detail, let me mention the publication in 2021 of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary’s now widely debated report looking at protests and how the police response was working. Matt Parr, Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary, called for a “modest reset” of the balance between police powers and the right to protest in order to respond to the changing nature of the protests we were seeing, which were sometimes dangerous; people were taking more risks. The suggestions included far more measures that were non-legislative than legislative, such as better training for police, better understanding of the law and a more sophisticated response to protests. What has followed has been a series of escalations of more and more unnecessary legislation that the police have not asked for and that will not have an impact on the actual challenge.
We have gathered to debate public order legislation many times in this House, and while there have been numerous Ministers, I have been here every single time. For our part, we suggested a modest reset of the laws, as suggested by Her Majesty’s inspectorate, with amendments making injunctions easier for local organisations to apply for and with stronger punishment for obstructing the highway. Our sensible amendments were rejected by the Government in favour of this raft of legislation, which now finds itself in ping-pong, because the House of Lords is quite rightly saying that these proposals are not necessary.
What do the Government think their amendments to the Lords amendments will actually deliver? Their impact assessment is quite clear. Let us look, for example, at the new offence of locking on, which is going to change everything, we are told. Let me quote:
“the number of additional full custody years”—
the number of prison years that will result from this new offence—
“lies within the range of zero to one”.
That is the impact this Bill will have: zero to one years of custodial sentences.
What about the serious disruption prevention orders we are debating today? How many custodial cases will they amount to? The answer is three to five. Well, that is all worth it then! The rights to be taken away, as Conservative and Opposition Members have so eloquently described, will be for three to five cases with custodial convictions a year.
The impact assessment is extraordinary.
Matt Parr of Her Majesty’s inspectorate clearly said that there was
“a wide variation in the number of specialist officers available for protest policing throughout England and Wales”,
and that
“Non-specialist officers receive limited training in protest policing.”
He made several recommendations about increased and better training. Have the Government listened to these sensible concerns? Not a bit. Their impact assessment states that the police will need seven minutes to understand this entire new Bill and to implement it fairly—seven minutes. The truth is that they do not listen to the police and they do not listen to what is actually needed; they just want a headline.
To pause for a minute, today we have all been appalled by the offences David Carrick was guilty of in the run-up to the murder of Sarah Everard, and these appalling sexual crimes and this epidemic of violence against women and girls needs a proper response, yet the Government are prioritising this legislation over a victims Bill.
Laws already exist to tackle protest that the police use every day. Criminal damage is an offence, as are conspiracy to cause damage, trespass, aggravated trespass, public nuisance, breach of the peace and obstruction of a highway—I could go on. In April 2019, 1,148 Extinction Rebellion activists were arrested and more than 900 were charged. In October 2019, 1,800 protesters were arrested. Many have been fined, and many have gone to prison. The impact assessment for this Bill suggests a few hundred arrests; the police are already making thousands. The powers are there for the police to use.
Turning to the definition of “serious disruption”, we must be clear about the history. The Opposition asked for a definition of “serious disruption” long ago in debates on what is now the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Government said no, but then agreed to a definition in the Lords. It was not a very good one, and we tried to amend it. The police have asked us for greater clarity on the definition of “serious disruption” because the Government have drafted such poor legislation that it is important for them to interpret how and when they should and should not intervene. But the new definition appears to include as serious disruption situations such as if I have to step aside on a pavement to avoid a protestor. The police do not want to diminish people’s rights through this definition—they have said that time and again, and privately they think the Government are getting this wrong.
Illegal Migration Bill
Rosie Winterton Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will be aware that the bulk of the 500,000 people she says have come through safe and legal routes are from Ukraine and Hong Kong. Regarding Afghanistan, she will also know that, in the whole of the last year, since the new safe route was put in place, only 22 individuals from Afghanistan have been accepted through that route. Is it any surprise to the Home Secretary, then, that 8,500 Afghans made a small boat crossing to the UK last year? Having rendered meaningless any safe and legal route from Afghanistan, where does the Home Secretary believe she derives the moral authority to criminalise those 8,500 people simply because of their mode of travel?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It is really important, if we are going to get everybody in, that the questions are very short, as the answers have been. It is really important for colleagues to remember that.
Suella Braverman
Regarding Operation Pitting, we have received 20,000 people from Afghanistan—fleeing the Taliban, fleeing conflict and fleeing persecution. I am very proud of Britain’s track record. That is one among many safe routes through which people have come to the UK.
Manchester Arena Inquiry: Volume 3 Report
Rosie Winterton Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the inquiry into the horrendous attack on Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017.
I work closely with MI5. While its activity is necessarily discreet, the whole country should be profoundly grateful for the patriotism and courage of its staff. They work indefatigably every day to keep the British people safe. Since the start of 2017, MI5 and the police have disrupted 37 late-stage attack plots.
An Islamist suicide bomber murdered 22 people and injured more than 1,000, as well as inflicting incalculable psychological damage and misery. I know that the whole House will join me in expressing our profound sorrow and extending our heartfelt condolences to everyone affected by this barbaric act. They were supposed to have a brilliant time and come home safely. What should have been a simple pleasure turned into a hellish nightmare. It is vital that we understand what happened and what lessons we need to learn, because we must do everything possible to prevent a repeat of this outrage.
Volume 3 of the inquiry was published last Thursday. I would like to thank Sir John Saunders and his team, who have spent more than three years on it. Sir John finds that there was a failure by the Security Service to act swiftly enough, and that there were
“problems with the sharing of information between the Security Service and Counter Terrorism Policing”.
Following the publication of the report, the director general of MI5 and the head of counter-terrorism policing offered their profound apologies for not preventing the attack.
Sir John does not blame any of the educational establishments that the bomber attended for failing to identify that he was a risk, but he does find:
“More needs to be done to ensure that education providers share relevant information about students”.
Sir John concludes that the bomber
“should have been subject to a Prevent referral at some point in 2015 or 2016. However, it is very hard to say what would have happened if”
the bomber
“had been approached under Prevent or the Channel programme.”
The police investigation into the attack, Operation Manteline, is praised.
Although Sir John cannot conclude whether the attack would have been prevented, he finds that there was a significant missed opportunity to take further investigative action that he judges might have led to information that could have prevented it. While this is welcome, and the Home Office will work at pace with both organisations to act on the chairman’s recommendations, we must not lose sight of the fact that responsibility for the attack lies with the bomber and his brother. These conclusions require careful consideration.
Since 2017, the Government have made a number of changes to how we deal with and seek to prevent terrorist attacks. We have given law enforcement and intelligence agencies improved powers. We have strengthened the controls around access to explosives precursors. We have strengthened the management of terrorist and terrorist-risk offenders in prison and on licence. We have ended the automatic early release of terrorist offenders in England, Wales and Scotland, and we have ensured that the sentences served by terrorists reflect the severity of their offending. We have strengthened the tools for monitoring dangerous people in the community.
We have invested heavily in counter-terrorism. We unveiled a new counter-terrorism operations centre in 2021 that brings together partners from counter-terrorism policing, the intelligence agencies, the criminal justice system and other Government agencies. This will allow minute-by-minute collaboration between teams in the police and MI5. Last year’s integration of special branch into the national CT policing network will improve our response to the full range of national security threats, boost skills and ensure better communication between agencies and a more consistent and effective national response.
Work is under way to develop a new faith security training scheme to raise security awareness among faith communities and help them to mitigate threats. We continue to engage with faith organisations and security experts to develop the scheme. In April, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) announced the continuation of the Jewish community protective security grant for 2022. In May, new funding was allocated to provide protective security at mosques and Muslim faith schools.
In response to any terrorist attack affecting British nationals, in the UK or overseas, the Home Office’s victims of terrorism unit works to ensure that the right support is available to them. The unit is conducting an internal review to strengthen its work. I am overseeing a comprehensive review of the CONTEST strategy to combat terrorism. It follows on from the independent review of Prevent, led by William Shawcross, which assessed the programme’s effectiveness in preventing people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. As the review made clear, Prevent requires major reform, and I have accepted all its recommendations.
Prevent has underestimated the threat of Islamist extremism, which remains far the biggest threat that we face, and too often it has minimised the role of ideology in terrorism. It will focus on security, not on political correctness, and its first objective will be to tackle the ideological causes of terrorism. The Government have also developed a comprehensive system of support for the owners and operators of public places across the UK. It includes access to research-driven expertise through products delivered by the National Counter Terrorism Security Office and the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure.
However, we must go further. Martyn’s law, formerly known as the Protect Duty, will introduce proportionate new security requirements for certain public premises throughout the UK. They will be better prepared and ready to respond, and their staff will know what to do in the event of a terrorist attack. Martyn’s law will clarify who is responsible for security activity at the premises in scope, increasing accountability. We are also considering how an inspection function will oversee compliance, to provide appropriate advice, and, where necessary, to sanction.
Martyn Hett was one of those killed in Manchester. I am enormously grateful to his mother, Figen Murray, and the Martyn’s Law Campaign Team, as well as to Survivors Against Terror and all the security partners, businesses, charities, local authorities and victims’ groups that have informed our work. I have always been humbled when I have met them and heard about their experiences.
The doctrines that underpin the way in which the emergency services respond to incidents have improved since the attack. Let me end by once again recognising the anguish, and the courage, of the loved ones of those who were killed or hurt on that dreadful night. It united the country in sorrow and in disgust. We will continue to work non-stop to prevent further such tragedies from being visited on others, and I commend this statement to the House.
Suella Braverman
I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions, which I will address in due course. I agree entirely with her assessment that we must now all come together—the Government, the security services and the emergency services—to learn the lessons of this awful tragedy and work to reduce the likelihood of future attacks. It was a truly sad and terrible incident, but I want to reassure the public that our priority is to keep them safe. We must root out extremism wherever we find it, and we must give no quarter to political correctness as we do so. We must respond quickly to all criticisms, but we must also recognise the serious work that has taken place since the attack.
On Martyn’s law, the Government will publish draft legislation for scrutiny in the spring. After that, we will introduce a Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows. Its progress will depend on Parliament passing it and agreeing a date for commencement. There will be a lead-in time to allow for those captured by the Bill to prepare.
Martyn’s law is one part of our extensive efforts across Government, including by the police and security services, to combat the threat of terrorism. There remains an intensive programme of guidance, developed by security experts, counter-terrorism policing and other partners, to provide high-quality advice to stakeholders and others with responsibility for public places. I look forward to moving forward with the solution and to presenting the Bill on Martyn’s law.
We have published a new policy framework allowing for greater scrutiny of the contact between terrorist prisoners and the public. Our new approved contacts scheme, to be implemented this year, will allow greater checks on the visitors and phone contacts of those convicted of terrorism and terrorism-connected offences, regardless of the category of prison in which they are held.
A large amount of work has been done since 2017 to support and improve the consistency of local authority Prevent delivery, and to manage the risk posed by subjects of interest. This includes additional funding and support for the highest-priority areas, the publication of the Prevent duty toolkit and the development of the multi-agency centre programme. We are working across Government to mitigate the risk posed by those about whom we have concerns.
Finally, the right hon. Lady asked about support for families who are going through this unimaginable process, which is why I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s announcement last week on the Government’s commitment to legislating, as soon as possible, to establish an independent public advocate to support victims following a major incident. The IPA will help victims to navigate the systems and processes that may follow a major incident, such as the police investigation, the inquests and inquiries. I hope it does not have to be used, but in the event of a tragedy, we will have the resources, expertise and structures in place to support families in this unimaginable situation.
I know the whole House will agree that we must now move forward with a solution to ensure our frameworks and processes are as robust as possible so that we never again see anything like this.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On behalf of the ISC, I extend our deepest sympathy to the families and individuals so dreadfully affected by this terrorist act.
I welcome the publication of the third volume of the Manchester Arena inquiry report, and I express my strong appreciation for the work of the inquiry team. Of course, the Committee will carefully consider the report and Sir John Saunders’s request that we should monitor the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations. In the meantime, do the Government acknowledge and accept that the ISC is the only Committee of Parliament equipped with both the facilities and the clearances fully to undertake this type of classified scrutiny?
Suella Braverman
Sir John Saunders has made it clear that he is determined that the recommendations are monitored, and he has made arrangements with the ISC to that effect. The open part of volume 3 has only just been published, and the closed recommendations have not yet been shared with the Government. We will carefully consider the report’s findings and recommendations in full. We will also consider any recommendations that Sir John makes about the role the ISC can play in the light of the memorandum of understanding that exists between the Committee and the Government. That MOU is available on the Committee’s website.
Yes, the ISC is a very effective and secure forum in which, as has happened in the past, the delivery on the back of such inquiries can be properly scrutinised.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
The awful events on 22 May 2017 led to the deaths of 22 innocent people and to hundreds more being injured and affected for the rest of their lives. Of course, the ultimate responsibility lies with the bomber who detonated his homemade device in the foyer of Manchester Arena as the crowds left an Ariana Grande concert. I welcome the fact that MI5 has reflected and apologised for its role in failing to prevent this heinous attack. For example, the report finds that intelligence could have led to the bomber being followed to a car where he stored his explosives. The inquiry also found that two pieces of information about the bomber were assessed by the Security Service as not being terrorism-related. An officer also admitted that they considered a possible national security concern on one of those pieces of information, but did not immediately discuss it with colleagues and did not write up a report on the same day.
May I first ask the Home Secretary what steps she is taking to ensure that the security services improve in their communications and information sharing, guaranteeing that professional standards do not fall short, as they have done in this case? Secondly, the inquiry has found that the bomber was probably assisted by someone in Libya, but because of gaps in available evidence, that line of inquiry has not been addressed sufficiently. Can the Home Secretary provide further information on whether the investigation will continue to search for those who assisted the bomber? Given how much frustration the victims’ families are experiencing, understandably, as a result of information being withheld due to national security implications, will the Home Secretary at least provide reassurance to those families that the UK Government will leave no stone unturned in finding justice for their relatives?
Change of Name by Registered Sex Offenders
Rosie Winterton Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call Sarah Champion, I just remind all Members that they should not refer to any cases that are active before the courts. They can of course discuss the principles of the issue, without referring to specific cases.
Plymouth Shootings
Rosie Winterton Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before we come to the statement, I wish to make it clear that, given the issues of national importance raised by the wider implications of the case before us, I am waiving the sub judice resolution regarding any outstanding proceedings.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the shootings in Plymouth in August 2021.
On 12 August 2021 in Keyham, Plymouth, Jake Davison shot and killed five people, wounded two others and took his own life. The deceased victims were the perpetrator’s mother, Maxine Davison, 51; three-year-old Sophie Martyn and her father Lee Martyn, 43; Stephen Washington, 59; and Kate Shepherd, 66. This was a truly horrific incident and a tragic loss of life.
The jury to the inquest into those deaths returned their findings of unlawful killings yesterday afternoon. Our thoughts and prayers go out once again to the families and friends of the victims, and to the whole community in Keyham. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for his tireless campaigning since the tragedy on behalf of the Keyham community and the families.
It is anticipated that the coroner will shortly issue a prevention of future deaths report in which further recommendations are likely to be made. If, as expected, the Home Office receives such a report, we will substantively respond to it—as well as to the recommendations made by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which has conducted an investigation into the shootings, and to a separate inquiry by the Scottish Affairs Committee—within 60 days of receiving it.
The Government keep firearms licensing under review to safeguard against abuse and prevent risk to public safety. In the immediate aftermath of the shootings in Plymouth, the then Home Secretary asked all police forces to urgently review their firearms licensing practices. The review found that, collectively, a total of 6,434 firearms and shotgun licences were surrendered, seized, revoked or refused over the previous 12-month period across England, Wales and Scotland. Of those licences, a total of 908 were subsequently returned or reissued following further checks or appeals decided by the courts. As a result of the review of returned licences, the original decision was overturned in eight cases and the licences have been re-surrendered or revoked. I hope that those findings provide reassurance that the police have put in place robust processes for issuing and reviewing firearms and shotgun licences.
That does not mean that there is any complacency following those awful events. Strengthened controls were subsequently issued through statutory guidance in October 2021—a few months after this awful incident—so that the police make sure that people are medically fit to receive a licence and that full medical checks have been undertaken, which, of course, did not happen in this case. A new digital marker system to flag firearms owners to GPs is also currently being introduced.
The statutory guidance draws on previous lessons learned and will ensure better consistency across police firearms licensing departments. It means that that no one will be given a firearms licence unless their doctor has expressly confirmed to the police whether they have any relevant medical conditions, including in relation to their mental health. The statutory guidance makes it clear that police can now undertake a wide range of checks to assess a person’s suitability depending on the individual case, including social media checks, financial checks, interviews with and background checks on relatives or associates, and checks relating to domestic violence or public protection units.
The College of Policing has refreshed its authorised professional practice on firearms licensing. A consultation was launched about a month ago, on 12 January, and it will conclude on 10 March. I encourage Members to respond to that consultation. His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire & rescue services has announced that it will be undertaking a thematic review of forces’ arrangements in respect of firearms licensing in 2024-25.
Devon and Cornwall police have assured the IOPC that changes have been made following its recent recommendations, but depending on what the coroner recommends shortly, I am currently minded to ask the inspectorate to look specifically at the arrangements that Devon and Cornwall have in place for firearms licensing and to confirm their suitability. The Home Office is also currently taking forward a review of fees that can be charged for firearms licences or certificates by police forces—we expect to consult later this year—to make sure that forces have enough resources to conduct those important checks.
We must ensure that our controls on firearms are as robust as possible, and that we learn the lessons from the tragic deaths in Keyham and in Scotland. We therefore await with keen interest the coroner’s anticipated prevention of future deaths report. As I have said, we will respond to that report, to the recent report by the Scottish Affairs Committee following the shootings in Skye, and to the IOPC report within 60 days of receiving the last of those three reports, which will be the coroner’s report. We will respond substantively to the recommendations in all three.
I commit today that any further changes needed to protect the public will be made. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp
I am afraid to say that very bad decisions—in fact, wrong decisions—were made in this case. As the former policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said, the wrong decisions were taken under the guidance in force both in 2018, when the licence was first granted, and two or three years later, when the gun was confiscated and then returned. The IOPC has said that very clearly, and it has said that two or three officers of Devon and Cornwall police made the wrong decision at the time. My right hon. Friend is right to say that a change of guidance would not have helped, because the wrong decisions were made under the guidance at the time. However, we need to make sure that the guidance is robust and comprehensive and that training is comprehensive. It is with those purposes in mind that we will respond to the three reports in 60 days or so.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill
Rosie Winterton ExcerptsWednesday 25th January 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 25 January 2023 - large print - (25 Jan 2023)
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the expertise of the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), who outlined in great detail the significance and importance of the new clauses. Yet again, the House has the opportunity to get it right, and to get it right now, today, rather than at some point or when parliamentary time allows or after consultation or in due course. Why not do it today?
I have heard no arguments from Ministers in Committee, on Second Reading or here this afternoon to excuse why it cannot be done today, now, with the new clauses that have been so diligently and expertly proposed by right hon. and hon. Members. As I said yesterday, these are cross-party new clauses. They are the most widely supported new clauses I have seen, and there is no reason why the Government cannot accept not only the proposals from this side of the House but the diligent work of their own Back Benchers on the new clauses. It makes absolute sense.
I support the Government amendments before us, both the correcting ones and those that allow Scottish Ministers and their responsibilities to be added to the Bill. It is good that they have been brought forward now, although I am slightly wary that that happened at such a late stage and that the problem had been missed. Regardless, I am happy to see them today. I also support the amendments on information sharing between agencies, which make sense.
I am, however, concerned that the Government will not accept the “failure to prevent” amendment. As I said in Committee, when the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) was a Back Bencher he was very supportive of the “failure to prevent” provisions, right up until 13 October 2022, when he said:
“Of all the measures we have talked about today, this would have the biggest effect in terms of cutting down on economic crime, because lots of our financial organisations are complicit when it suits their interests to be so.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 310.]
There is nothing in the Bill that would change that situation, but the new clause would. As I pointed out in Committee, now he is not just the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton but the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. He has argued for a “failure to prevent” economic crime offence not just on 13 October last year, but on 7 July 2022, on 1, 22 and 28 February 2022, on 2 December 2021, on 9 November 2021, on 22 September 2021, on 18 May 2021, on 9 November 2020, on 25 February 2020, on 19 July 2019, on 23 April 2019, on 18 December 2018 and on 9 October 2018. Given that the hon. Gentleman has spent his parliamentary career arguing for this, it beggars belief that now he is a Minister with the power to implement it, he is not actually doing so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred Divisions.
On the draft Environmental Targets (Biodiversity) (England) Regulations 2022, the Ayes were 302 and the Noes were 166, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Environmental Targets (Woodland and Trees Outside Woodland) (England) Regulations 2022, the Ayes were 302, the Noes were 166, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Environmental Targets (Water) (England) Regulations 2022, the Ayes were 300, the Noes were 170, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Environmental Targets (Fine Particulate Matter) (England) Regulations 2022, the Ayes were 301 and the Noes were 170, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Environmental Targets (Residual Waste) (England) Regulations 2022, the Ayes were 301 and the Noes were 170, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Liam Byrne
It is a pleasure to speak to new clauses 1 and 2 in my name and those of many others, and it is a pleasure to follow so many excellent contributions to the debate. I hope it has become clear that there is a wide and deep cross-party consensus about the need to take this overdue Bill and repower it with not only good laws but proper resourcing so that we can begin to ensure that economic criminals in this country are put under rather more pressure.
A lot is in a name, and the Bill’s name is the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. As the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) pointed out, what is crucial to ensuring the corporate transparency we need to police economic crime is information. Much of that information comes from whistleblowers and, crucially, from courageous journalists who are prepared to take tremendous risks and go to tremendous lengths to pursue the truth, publish the truth and hold the guilty to account.
The challenge we have is that we know we cannot police economic crime without such transparency, but that old advice to journalists to follow the money in pursuit of the truth is becoming almost impossible because our courts—English courts, London courts, which were sanctuaries for justice for 1,000 years—are becoming the strike point of choice for oligarchs around the world to intimidate, to cow and to deter journalists from publishing the truth with the threat of sky-high legal costs. My friend the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who is not in his place, and I, together with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), have been pushing this argument for almost a year. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight presented to the House a first-class private Member’s Bill, which I was proud to sign. I commend the Minister for the work that he did when he was Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee on ensuring that the cancer of strategic legal action against public participants is something that we know about and are collectively determined to act on.
Within the sub judice rules and exemptions that govern the debate, I can talk about some of the evidence that we now have on the record. There are now so many cases that it has become clear that there is a playbook for oligarchs. It is a playbook that all of them know and all of them follow. It is a playbook that is now predictable, and it is a playbook that we must draw to a close. We could draw it to a close this afternoon by agreeing to the amendments that we have tabled with cross-party support.
The first step in the playbook is to target the individual. Do not target the company, because companies are strong and individuals are weak. That is exactly why Arron Banks went for Carole Cadwalladr. He did not want to go for The Guardian or the Scott Trust; he wanted to go for an individual journalist. That is exactly why Prigozhin, as we now learn, decided to target Eliot Higgins and not Bellingcat, because of course an individual is always more vulnerable than a corporate organisation. In most of these cases, we see an oligarch taking aim fair and square at an individual and not the corporate organisation behind them to maximise the power of intimidation.
Secondly, having identified the individual, the task is to maximise the intimidation. Let us look at what Tom Burgis had to go through when he was writing his book about the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation. The bad guys whom he was trying to expose actually went to the lengths of tapping his phone and bugging him. They must have done—that was the only way in which their investigators could turn up to a secret meeting that he was having with former Government officials in a car park. Those are the lengths that these people will go to.
Thirdly, there is the business of exaggerating the claims: taking some aside in a bit of written material and exaggerating it ridiculously to try to multiply legal costs. We saw that in particular with Mr Abramovich in his case against Catherine Belton and HarperCollins. It was a ridiculously exaggerated claim. Of course, the objective for Mr Abramovich was not to win his case. All he sought to do was maximise the legal costs for HarperCollins and Catherine Belton.
We see that now in a case in the Royal Courts of Justice, which I will not name but which I sat through a couple of weeks ago. That case is so thin. It entails an oligarch basically trying to claim that a number of emails that have been sent are in effect tantamount to a publication. Even though he is unable to name and specify the harm that has been done, he is seeking to bring a case for defamation. It is the flimsiest of cases anyone could imagine, yet hundreds of thousands of pounds have now been racked up in legal costs in an attempt to intimidate someone out of telling the truth.
Step four is to co-ordinate with others, which we saw in particular with Mr Abramovich, who decided to round up a number of his old mates to try to bring some kind of collective action—not just in this country, by the way, but in other countries such as Australia. That was a way to double the legal costs and maximise the pain against Catherine Belton and HarperCollins.
Then we have the attempts to rack up costs even though the grounds may be as flimsy as anything. Forensic News, for example, is being sued by Walter Soriano. Forensic News has a total of 12 subscribers in this country, yet Walter Soriano has been allowed to prosecute the case because of those 12 subscribers. Why could he possibly be doing that? Is it, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden described, because our legal costs are so high that the pain can be maximised by bringing a case here?
We see the same in the case referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) of the former rulers of Kazakhstan, who have brought a SLAPPs case against the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and openDemocracy. That was because openDemocracy had the temerity to expose the $8 billion siphoned off through Jusan Technologies, which is somehow now claiming that its economic interests in the UK have been damaged and therefore it is entitled to bring a case in the Royal Courts of Justice. As a result, openDemocracy and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism are forking out thousands of pounds to defend themselves against this onslaught.
The situation we now have in this country is so appalling that, as we heard in the urgent question this afternoon, we have the spectacle of a Russian warlord being licensed by His Majesty’s Treasury to fly his lawyers to London to polish a case to sue an English journalist in an English court in order to undermine the sanctions this country has imposed on him. That is how ridiculous, corroded and broken our system has become. An exemption was licensed by a servant of the Crown to spend thousands of pounds flying lawyers to service the needs of the head of the Wagner Group in St Petersburg and to refine a lawfare case in an English court.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I think I should explain, for the benefit of Hansard, that the shadow Minister will be coming back on Third Reading. It is customary to go straight to the Minister, given that he moved the motion for the lead new clause.
Tom Tugendhat
I thought that we were to have the joy and the privilege of hearing from the hon. Member for Aberavon, who can never say too much in this Chamber, or indeed anywhere else—which is lucky, because he very rarely says too little.
It is a huge pleasure to have been here this afternoon. Members in all parts of the House have made extremely powerful points, but I will touch on just a few of them, because many have been covered at length and in detail on numerous other occasions. If Members will forgive me, I will deal straight away with a few of the matters that I think require immediate attention.
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) for tabling new clause 6 and for the way in which he has approached the area of corporate criminal liability, in which he and I agree that reform is required. That is why the Government commissioned a review by the Law Commission, which my right hon. and learned Friend cited and which showed a definite need to clamp down on economic crime conducted by commercial organisations. We have been working closely across Government and with prosecutors in carefully considering its recommendations and how improvements can best be made. It is vital that any reform can be used by law enforcement agencies, does not duplicate what already exists and avoids placing unnecessary burdens on legitimate businesses, but we must also operate within the constraints of the Bill.
I share my right hon. and learned Friend’s passion for change. I am immensely grateful for his thoughtful input, and I greatly value my engagement with him, and with other Members, on this issue. I can assure him that the Government intend to address the need for a “failure to prevent” offence in the other place, and I would welcome further discussion with him about the most effective way in which that can be done.
Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill
Rosie Winterton ExcerptsFriday 2nd December 2022
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 View all Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Can I just ensure that colleagues know it is important to address the Bill and not go too much wider?
Holly Lynch
I will get back to the detail of the Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I quickly make the point that the Government cut 21,000 police officers. I will not be giving them a pat on the back for replacing 20,000, having recognised the detrimental impact that has had on the safety of our communities. Those pressures hit rural communities particularly hard. Interestingly, just last month, BBC analysis found that suspects are almost 25% more likely to be charged for crimes in urban areas than in the countryside. In 2021, there was a charge rate of 6.89% in rural areas compared with 8.55% in urban areas. I am sure that the policing Minister will want to have a close look at that stark difference.
I return to the detail of the Bill. I particularly welcome its provision to allow, through secondary legislation, the Secretary of State the power to expand the remit of the Bill’s requirements to other types of equipment and machinery commonly used in the agricultural and construction sectors. We hope that, if enacted, secondary legislation will expand the Bill to cover a multitude of other agricultural and construction equipment. I know that chainsaws and nail guns are the types of tools and kit that are too regularly stolen from properties, or the backs of vans and other vehicles, costing hundreds of thousands of pounds each year.
Given the expertise of the hon. Member for Buckingham in this area and his contributions on the topic in the Chamber today and previously, I know that he is all too aware of the problem of theft from vans. According to research carried out by Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles, in 2021, 27% of van drivers had fallen victim to tool theft in the previous 12 months. The total cost of all lost tools and equipment is estimated to be about £15 million a year. Volkswagen estimates that the associated downtime for drivers who must replace those tools costs £550 a day per van. The Bill presents an opportunity to sharpen the tools available in the fight against this type of crime. When resources are down and geographically stretched in some rural areas, the more we can use technology to design out crime, the better.
We are satisfied that the Bill will make some progress towards that, helping to suppress theft and the antisocial use of quad bikes that is often a consequence. I again commend the hon. Member for Buckingham. We hope that the Government will allow the Bill to progress to Committee stage where Members can consider the detail, in the hope that it makes a difference when tackling this type of criminality, which blights far too many communities.