Illegal Migration
Stella Creasy Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick
The two hotels; my right hon. Friend corrects me. I would obviously like them to be closed at the earliest opportunity, but today we are setting out the beginning of a phased closure, with the first 50 hotels being notified. I hope that more will follow in the weeks and months ahead. I am fully aware of the situation in Chelmsford that she described, and I would like it to be resolved.
I take my right hon. Friend’s broader point about the importance of the Home Office working closely with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), is sitting beside me. She and I and the Secretary of State are working closely together to ensure that local authorities can plan for any new individuals who might live in their area.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to that response, the Minister talks about the planning between the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Home Office, but I wonder what experience he has of the London private rental market. In my constituency, refugees who have been granted asylum are being kicked out of their hotels by the Home Office contractor within a week.
Stella Creasy
The Minister shakes his head, but I am happy to share with him the letter that shows that. No assistance has been provided for those people. They are being told to go back to the council, but the council does not have time to follow up with them, so they end up at our local homeless night shelter, which will ultimately cost us all more than an orderly system. The Minister is shaking his head, but what does his data show about the number of refugees granted asylum while staying in migrant hotels who have been rehoused? Will he look at a more orderly system, and work with those of us on the ground to ensure that today’s announcement will not just be a way of passing on the cost to another Department?
Robert Jenrick
First the hon. Lady wanted us to clear the backlog; now she does not want us to do that because of the consequences of clearing it. Perhaps it would be better if she just supported us in trying to stop illegal migrants coming to the country in the first place. On her specific points, it is not correct that the Home Office gives seven days’ notice; it gives 28. [Interruption.] I am happy to look at what she is waving in my face, but I assure her that the policy is 28 days’ notice. The key point is that everybody who is granted asylum has access to the benefits system and can get a job. Given that the overwhelming majority are young men, that is exactly what they should do now: get on and contribute to British society, and integrate into our country.
Migration and Economic Development Partnership
Stella Creasy Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend speaks for the British people in his powerful question. My answer is simple: yes.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Contrary to what the Home Secretary has just told the House, the vast majority of those in the boats are Iranians and Afghans—just 1% are Albanians. Iranians and Afghans have an asylum grant rate of 98%, because—surprise, surprise, given what is happening in those countries—they are refugees fleeing persecution. The only phoney thing here is the Home Secretary’s attempt to avoid responsibility for spending so much taxpayers’ money on a policy on which—going by the judgment, and yes, I have read it—she clearly did not do her due diligence.
The Home Secretary will have had to put forward a budget. She says that the Government will do whatever it takes to make this policy work. Are they going to spend whatever it takes? Will she be honest with the British public about how much money she has allocated to continue on this folly to save her blushes in the run- up to the general election? It could go towards processing cases and getting the backlog down.
Suella Braverman
I am not in the business of taking lectures from Labour on this issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady has asked her question. It is discourteous for her to sit there repeating it when the Home Secretary is answering it. A bit of courtesy is necessary on all sides.
Stop and Search
Stella Creasy Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend puts it very well. The police—our frontline partners who are dealing with this issue day in, day out; who have to break that tragic news to parents, every parent’s worst nightmare—report back that stop and search, when used lawfully, proportionately and reasonably, is a vital tool in the fight against crime and is fundamentally very effective in saving lives.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Frankly, I hope that my residents in Walthamstow are not listening to this statement, because it is just plain offensive to those of us at the heart of this challenge. Just a few weeks ago, I got up to ask the Prime Minister about a 16-year-old boy murdered in my community outside his school, and another 16-year-old in court charged with that murder. This weekend, last night, I was sat with residents, having an emergency residents’ meeting because we had had a serious shooting in my community—another young man, critical but stable in hospital.
None of my residents would dispute the role that stop and search can play, but we are all arguing—begging, pleading—for this Government to recognise the epidemic of youth violence in our country. If the Home Secretary cares about these young people, as she says she does, she should invest in their future. Under her Government, investment in youth services has plummeted from £158 per head to just £37. I asked the Prime Minister to make this issue one of his national priorities, but he ignored the question. Will the Home Secretary do something different and put her budget into correcting that deficit?
Suella Braverman
I am very proud of what this Government have achieved when it comes to law and order. We have falling crime; we have a record number of police officers—ever, in the history of policing; this financial year alone, we have put over £100 million into tackling serious violence; and since 2019, 136,000 violent offences have been prevented in places operating Government initiatives. That is thousands of lives saved and thousands of violent incidents prevented. I only wish the hon. Lady would welcome that.
Illegal Migration
Stella Creasy Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Suella Braverman
I am grateful to my French counterpart in the French Government for their very good co-operation on this challenge. It is clear that we have a common challenge. The illegal migration problem that many European countries are facing is similar to the one we are facing. Almost all my European counterparts are grappling with this issue, because we are facing a global migration crisis. That is why it requires a collaborative approach, and that is why I am pleased that the Prime Minister has been working hard to achieve consensus among European allies.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
In this month of all months—Pride month—I want to follow-up on the answer that the Home Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant). We know that Uganda has introduced a law that brings in the death penalty for what it terms “aggravated homosexuality”—goodness knows how that would go down in Soho. Is she saying that, if a Ugandan was on a boat and came here on a boat, she would deport them to Rwanda when, in 2021, during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, it was detaining LGBT people and claiming they did not represent Rwandan values? Has she even read her own Home Office equality impact assessment that details the illegal treatment? Will she rule out today deporting any Ugandans to Rwanda from the UK?
Suella Braverman
I ask the hon. Member whether she has even read the High Court judgment that looks extensively at our agreement with Rwanda. It looks in detail at our arrangements with Rwanda and concludes emphatically that our agreement is lawful and that, when it comes, for example, to article 3—the kind of claims she is talking about—there is no issue with the treatment of asylum seekers if they were to be in Rwanda. So I encourage her to do her homework before she makes gross misassumptions about Rwanda.
Illegal Migration Bill
Stella Creasy ExcerptsWednesday 26th April 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 April 2023 - large print - (26 Apr 2023)
Robert Jenrick
It is a pull factor to the UK that individuals can work in our grey economy, which is a cause of serious concern. If we were to add an additional pull factor, by enabling people to work sooner, it would be yet another reason for people to choose to come to this country. I will return to that point in responding to other questions before the House today.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way at the moment.
The vast majority of people arriving on small boats come from an obvious place of safety—France—with a fully functioning asylum system, so they are choosing to make that additional crossing. They are essentially asylum shoppers, even if they originally come from a place of danger, and they are doing that because they believe the United Kingdom is a better place to make their claim and to build a future. Their ability to work is obviously part of that calculation, as our north European counterparts frequently say.
Robert Jenrick
I do, and I commend that arrangement wholeheartedly. I took part in what is, in one sense, a successor to that scheme, the Homes for Ukraine scheme, and it was an incredibly rewarding experience for me and my family. The principle at the heart of that is that it is not purely a matter for the state to provide support; individuals, groups, churches, synagogues and mosques might want to come forward to gather support and funding to meet the state halfway and assist those people to come to the UK. That scheme is available. We would like more people to take part in it. It is exactly the sort of scheme that could be considered alongside the future expansion of safe and legal routes.
Robert Jenrick
I am going to draw my remarks to a close now, because all Members want others to have an opportunity to speak.
Robert Jenrick
I am not giving way, because time is very limited.
I have summarised the other Government amendments, which are more detailed and technical in nature, in a letter to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and placed a copy of it in the Library of the House. I stand ready to address any particular points in my winding-up speech, if necessary. For now, I commend all the Government amendments to the House and look forward to the contributions of other Members. I will respond to as many of those as I can at the end of the debate.
Stella Creasy
I understand why the Minister did not want to give way on this issue, despite saying that he would, but my hon. Friend raises the question of people being in hotels. Does he agree that the Government need to be honest with their own Back Benchers about the statutory instrument that they tried to slip out at the end of the previous Session that will remove the licensing laws from houses of multiple occupancy for asylum seekers? That will presumably prevent local authorities from refusing to license those places, and it will also have the consequence of meaning that we no longer require places where we are expecting families, pregnant women and small children to live to have fire alarms, smoke alarms or running water. Does he agree that the Government need to be honest about how awfully they wish to treat asylum seekers and how they will avoid local authorities being part of that conversation?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. She is absolutely right. We are talking about basic standards of decency and humanity. Houses of multiple occupancy need to be properly regulated. They need a basic floor of certification and registration and of health and safety, particularly when we are talking about families. The Government should consider being more transparent and straightforward on that point.
Fortunately, we on the Opposition Benches care about secure borders, and we will clear up the mess by delivering a firm, fair and well-managed system that will stop the dangerous channel crossings, because we know that good government is not about chasing headlines; it is about common sense, hard graft and quiet diplomacy. Those are the qualities that underpin our new clauses and amendments to the Bill.
Mrs Elphicke
I rise to speak to amendment 184, which was tabled in my name and supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and many other right hon. and hon. Friends.
The stop the boats Bill is important to my Dover and Deal constituency because it focuses specifically on the problems of small boat arrivals by dramatically reducing the pull factor that draws people to the United Kingdom—namely, that once people are here, it is very hard to remove them. The Bill cuts through all that. It says, plainly and simply: “If you’ve arrived here illegally, you won’t be allowed to stay.”
I have long said that the small boats crisis will end only when migrants and people smugglers alike know that they will not succeed. Stopping the boats is the right and compassionate thing to do. It will save lives that are being risked in the channel. The Bill and today’s amendments, particularly new schedule 1, will send a clear and unmistakable message to would-be channel migrants: “If you are thinking of breaking into Britain in a small boat, don’t bother. Save your cash and stay safe on land.”
Let me turn to the details of amendment 184. Clause 4, to which the amendment relates, sets out the circumstances in which human rights and other protection cases can be excluded. Put simply, if a person arrives through the small boats route, they will not be allowed to try to prevent their removal through endless legal appeals paid for by the British taxpayer.
The amendment focuses specifically on those who would put our public safety or national security at risk. This approach is in line with the UN refugee convention and the European convention on human rights, which has always allowed countries to protect themselves from those who would cause the most serious risk of harm to them and their countrymen and women.
The amendment would apply whether or not the country of origin can be identified—for example, if someone is undocumented, perhaps because they have eaten their identity papers or thrown their passport in the channel, or, as border officials tell me has shockingly been the case, if someone has taken razor blades to their fingers to damage and destroy their fingerprints to avoid identification.
At the frontline of my constituency in Dover and Deal, this is not a matter of open-borders fervour or pro-migration ideological dogma, as some of the contributions today have suggested; it is a matter that directly affects my constituency and our country’s safety, security and peace of mind. A key reason why the small boats Bill and amendment 184 matter is that when Dover and Deal residents raise matters of concern, the official Opposition do not back them and do not even believe them. When migrants ran amok and broke into a woman’s house, before being apprehended in a bedroom, the leader of the Labour group on Dover District Council went on TV to cast doubt on residents’ accounts, dismissing them as misreportings. He said that we should be “more generous” to illegal channel migrants.
The reality is that Labour’s new clause 15 is a smokescreen for allowing more legal challenge and more taxpayer costs —more potential loopholes to allow those who would wish our country harm to stay here. New clause 15(2) would require a Secretary of State to consider imposing TPIMs on illegal migrants who are suspected of terrorism, if they cannot remove them, but as the Minister has said, the Government are doing that anyway. The Government will always act to protect the country’s national security.
If Opposition Members want to ensure our country’s safety and security, they should back the Government’s “stop the boats” Bill and they should back swift removals. New clause 15 pretends to be tough, but in fact it would result in slower appeals than the fast-track process the Government have set out. In my constituency we see Labour’s true colours: it is an open-borders, pro-immigration party. It does not want to stop the boats. Just like Brexit, so on small boats: Labour cannot be trusted and does not listen.
I thank the Minister for engaging with us on amendment 184. I have had the reassurance that I sought, as have my right hon. and hon. Friends who support the amendment, so we will not press it to a vote today. I look forward to continuing to engage with the Minister to stop the boats.
Stella Creasy
Let us be very clear: demonising refugees will not tackle the cost of living crisis in this country, but it might create some local election leaflets, just like this piece of legislation. We know that this legislation will not survive the other place, thankfully, so the question for us today is: what messages do we need to send to our colleagues in the other House as they scrutinise and hold to account this Government, given that the Government have systematically failed to provide the time for scrutiny in this place?
Stella Creasy
The Minister has not explained why he has put forward that statutory instrument. People will still come because it is still better than the death that they face in the country they are fleeing from. We see that with the Sudanese. The Minister said earlier that he would listen to the UNHCR when it came to taking Sudanese refugees; in that case, he needs to tell us how many he will take because right now, there are people facing that very same situation. There are no queues in a war zone.
Stella Creasy
With the greatest respect, I have listened at length to the hon. Member for Stone and have yet to find any common ground on these issues.
Frankly, it is about time that we stood up for the importance of the international rule of law and helping people when they are facing these situations. There are no queues in a war zone, there is no administration or bureaucracy: there is fear, terror and persecution, and those people who are in Sudan now will be asking those questions. If the Minister wants to answer them and give those people hope that, if they make it to the border or to one of the refugee camps—they may find one of those UNHCR people who does not think that the UNCHR has that relationship with the UK but thinks the Minister is prepared to do that—we will take a certain number of people, that might stop them fleeing. This legislation will not do so.
More people will keep coming, including from Afghanistan, where the Government have failed to bring in a safe and legal route, and where they still fail to listen to those of us who have constituents who have been affected by that fact. They will come from Eritrea. They will come from the war zones and places of persecution—those people whose religion means that they are at risk. They will come because they see what we did with the Ukrainians; they see this country, and they know that there is a better way of doing it. The Lords will take this legislation on—that is probably the point of it for the Government—but let nobody be under any illusions: the Bill is just about 4 May. It is not actually about resolving the problem.
Tim Loughton
It is difficult to know in five minutes how to address the five amendments with my name at the top, including the two that have been leapfrogged by the Home Secretary. I have spent many hours cossetted with the Minister for Immigration and others to try to get some of the adjustments being made, and I am grateful for the time he has spent to try to get us to a better place. I certainly do not have time to respond to the extensive assurances that he aimed to give me from the Dispatch Box earlier.
I support safe and legal routes. I am glad we will now have them on the face of the Bill. We need a balance. I support this Bill, but if we are to be tough on the abusers of our immigration system, we also have to ensure we are open and generous to genuine asylum seekers, to whom we owe a duty of care. The amendments on safe and legal routes are also timely because we needed to address the question that I posed to the Home Secretary some months ago about how the 16-year-old orphan from east Africa with relations in the UK would make it to the UK. This week, that apocryphal scenario became a reality. The measures that the Immigration Minister will be bringing forward need to address that question.
It is essential that the Immigration Minister consults local authorities about capacity, but he also needs to consult refugee organisations and others about the type of schemes with which we will come forward. How will they operate? Who will qualify for them? How will people access them? Let us make sure that those schemes are in place sooner rather than later in 2024, although I would have liked them to be contemporaneous. We have a deal on safe and legal routes, but we need to see some real workable details in the coming months and as the Bill goes through the Lords.
I have no time to talk about amendment 181 on the return of children or amendment 182 on best interest and welfare checks. My real concern has been on child detention, so I was grateful for the assurances that the Immigration Minister gave me, because the measures as they stand do not differentiate between children and adults in detention terms. They ride roughshod through the safeguards on child detention under the Immigration Bill 2014, through which this Government specified the 24-hour limit, and the Government have not even offered to put the maximum detention times for children in this Bill. That is a must when it comes to any amendments that the Minister can bring forward in the House of Lords.
Illegal Migration Bill
Stella Creasy ExcerptsTuesday 28th March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 28 March 2023 - (28 Mar 2023)
Alison Thewliss
I absolutely agree. We accept that the Government have made an absolute hash of the asylum system. The asylum backlog is enormous and they should pay attention to it, but tackling the problem by denying anybody else asylum ever does not seem the legitimate way to deal with it.
Clauses 11 and 12 expand the power of detention. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention, I find that an incredibly worrying development. It includes people who cannot be removed to their country of origin. The UK Government have previously said that their policy was to decrease the immigration detention estate, but that will now be expanded dramatically. The harm done to people in detention facilities is immeasurable. It exacerbates existing trauma, tears families apart and has crushing impacts on mental and physical health. After the Home Secretary has removed the right to apply for bail, thousands more will be trapped in the system indefinitely.
The UK’s detention system is already an international outlier, with people held indefinitely, out of line with provisions in the criminal law system. I received an email earlier from Elspeth Macdonald, who works for Medical Justice, on worrying and serious reports of a death at Colnbrook immigration removal centre. I would be grateful if the Minister stopped playing with his phone and confirmed whether the reports of the death there are true, because it is incredibly worrying. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that there will be an investigation, if the death did happen. There have been deaths in other immigration centres, and we do not want the Government repeating those dangerous errors. I would like to know what appropriate counselling and bereavement support have been made available to people in that detention centre, because that is a frightening experience for them.
It would be useful to know why the Home Office has stopped including the number of deaths in immigration detention from the official immigration statistics. They were published every year from 2017 to 2021, but in the latest statistics for 2022, deaths were not included. Immigration detention is bad for people. It is bad for their mental health. If there is to be further immigration detention—[Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but the evidence is incredibly clear that immigration detention is bad for people.
The Bill also expands detention criteria to include children, which rolls back on hard-won rights that the Glasgow girls and others fought for. Immigration detention is no place for anybody, and certainly not for children. Some of the detainees that the Minister wishes to hold will be pregnant. The British Medical Association has said that under the Illegal Migration Bill, the 72-hour time limit on the detention of pregnant women, introduced by the Government in 2016, will be denied to women who arrive by irregular means. Instead, pregnant women will be locked up indefinitely, while the Government attempt to remove them from the UK. They will not be allowed to apply for immigration bail for the first 28 days that they are detained or for juridical review of the lawfulness of their detention. Many pregnant women are likely to languish in detention for some time, since there are few returns agreements in place by which they could be removed from the UK.
I highlight a particular case study from Women for Refugee Women of a woman called Priya, a trafficking survivor detained in Yarl’s Wood when she was 20 weeks pregnant and held there for almost two months before being released. Priya said:
“I only had one hospital appointment while I was there, for my 20-week scan, and even then I was escorted by officers who took me 40 minutes late for my appointment. I felt frustrated that I wasn’t able to speak to the midwife after my scan because there was no time. The officers just took me straight back to Yarl’s Wood instead. It was not easy. I often felt weak and in pain; I’m anaemic and my blood pressure is very low. On one occasion I passed out in Yarl’s Wood, but they just took me back to my room and left.”
Pregnant women are being locked up in detention centres. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the world? It is inhumane.
Clause 12 amends the Immigration Act 1971, and specifies that determining what is a reasonable period to detain people is for the Secretary of State rather than the courts. Those changes would apply to existing detention powers as well as the new powers provided in clause 11. The amendment removes the considerable latitude given to the Home Secretary to decide what is reasonably necessary to enable examination or removal. Clause 13 amends the immigration bail provisions in schedule 10 to the Immigration Act and restricts the jurisdiction of the courts to review the lawfulness of a decision to detain or to refuse bail.
Clauses 15 to 20 deal with the provision of asylum accommodation for children by the Home Office rather than local authorities, which is entirely unacceptable. The Children’s Commissioner for Scotland has condemned that move in the strongest terms, saying:
“The Home Office’s history of neglect renders it an unfit parent for vulnerable children.”
The Children’s Commissioner for England says:
“The Bill as it stands leaves profound areas of uncertainty–for example, as to what form the accommodation provided to children by the Home Office will take–making proper scrutiny deeply challenging.”
The Home Office has already lost children from the accommodation it has used, so we cannot trust it to look after things at present. Why would we give it more powers in this area? On Second Reading I spoke about treating people as we would like to be treated. We would not treat our own children in that way, so why do the Home Secretary, the Minister and this Government think that we should?
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady is giving incredibly powerful testimony. Will she consider supporting new clause 18, which would require that we treat every child on UK soil with the same care and that we safeguard every child equally, whether they are refugees or not?
Alison Thewliss
I absolutely support the hon. Lady’s amendment and her work in this area. This Government forget, in their talking about people as though they were an amorphous blob, that we are talking about children, and they have rights under the UNCRC. Scotland has done a lot of work on looked-after children with “the promise” and we should not treat those children any less well than we treat our own.
We would amend the Bill so that clause 23 shall not come into effect without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Parliamentarians in both Scotland and the UK are human rights guarantors, and an important part of our role is to ensure that legislation is compliant with international human rights obligations. The incompatibility of the Bill with the European convention on human rights, the refugee convention, the convention on action against trafficking, and the convention on the rights of the child means that we as lawmakers are obliged to vote against it. The undermining of rights conveyed upon individuals by those agreements must be resisted by all spheres of government. If they are coming after this group now, it will be another group soon enough.
The Bill will negatively impact those seeking international protection in Scotland, as well as on the powers and duties of the Scottish Government, local authorities, and other public bodies under the devolution settlement. I strongly urge—I expect it, to be honest—the Scottish Parliament to withhold legislative consent for the Bill. I expect the UK Government to override that consent.
The SNP amendments to clause 25 would remove provisions that allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that would alter the operation of the two-year sunset clause in relation to clauses 21 to 24.
Clause 27 amends the Modern Slavery Act 2018 and removes provisions for leave to remain for victims of slavery or human trafficking. As protections will no longer be in place, it will be difficult for third-party agencies to encourage victims of trafficking to come forward, or to work with them should they do so. The Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance in Glasgow has told me that it is increasingly difficult to reassure service users, who are victims of sex trafficking, that they will not be returned or sent to Rwanda for speaking up, and the Bill will mean that TARA cannot reassure them at all.
People who are trafficked were often in very vulnerable situations in their home countries, and those circumstances are exploited by traffickers—that is why they are here. The risk of being returned to those situations means that people will either stay in a dangerous situation or escape and go underground to other dangerous situations. If they are apprehended and returned, the risk of re-trafficking is high if the reasons for their vulnerability are not addressed. Third-party agencies have been clear that the Bill will fetter their ability to reach out to vulnerable groups, to support women, children and victims of torture, trafficking and all kinds of human rights abuses, and that there will be a sharp drop-off in the number of people seeking help, because they will fear doing so.
This Bill will not stop the boats. It will not fix the asylum backlog. It will do nothing other than put lives at risk. It is an anti-refugee Bill. It is a traffickers’ charter. It rips up human rights. Scotland wants no part of it. We want an independent country in which we can stand up for human rights, not diminish them, as this UK Government seek to do.
Mr Carmichael
“Unconscionable” is one of the more polite and measured terms that we could use about it. I reflect on the fact that when I visited Dungavel in 2007 or 2008, my own children were about six and 10 years old. The staff in Dungavel did a phenomenal job to mitigate the horrors of what they were dealing with, but at the end of the day, we were keeping children behind a razor wire, lockdown institution, and that was downright inappropriate and unacceptable. Nobody will ever persuade me that we should treat any child differently from the way in which we would want to treat our own.
Stella Creasy
The fact that the Minister has just said on the record that it is okay to incarcerate minors—another word being “children”—because we think some of them may not be children reflects why we need to clarify the safeguarding and welfare responsibilities of all public agencies that deal with these children. Everybody is a child until the age of 18 in international law. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he supports new clause 18, to ensure parity in those responsibilities and put beyond doubt the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State and Ministers to look after every child equally well in this country?
Mr Carmichael
It will come as no great surprise to the hon. Lady that I do. That brings me to thinking about what we do here. There is a danger that those of us who follow the evidence and actually care about what will happen if this dreadful piece of legislation is ever implemented disappear down the rabbit hole of trying to improve, amend and mitigate it. We have all tabled dozens—hundreds, some of us—of amendments, but this piece of the Bill has simply to be excised. I will be seeking to divide the House on clause 11 stand apart, because, frankly, there is no mitigation and no polishing of this—I avoid the vulgarity, but everyone knows what I am talking about. There is no way we can polish and improve on something that is so fundamentally removed from the way we would tolerate our own children being treated.
Earlier, we were talking about returning people. I was privileged yesterday to meet a group of Hongkongers, who are among that privileged group of people who came here by a safe and legal route. They still have their problems, of course: their journey did not end when they arrived at Heathrow, and they still have to deal with the trauma of leaving friends, family and others behind in circumstances where they would ordinarily have chosen not to do so. However, I heard a quite remarkable story from one person who did not come through the safe and legal route because her arrival predated that visa scheme being opened up. She told me that her twin sister had been here, but had left the country, and now she was being told that she would need to leave because the Home Office had confused her biometrics with those of her twin sister. That is the sort of ruthless efficiency of which the Home Office is capable. Are we seriously hearing now that we are going to start sending people back to Hong Kong because they happen to have come here before the start of the British national overseas visa scheme?
Dame Rosie, I feel that I have detained the House for long enough—that is probably a matter of consensus among Members—but when it comes to Divisions, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches will do everything that we can to improve the Bill. However, ultimately, there are pieces of it that simply cannot be left to stand.
Stella Creasy
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s long expertise on this issue, but does he recognise the challenge of what we have seen over the past year in the treatment of unaccompanied and accompanied children? It is impossible for local authorities to undertake that safeguarding role and the duties under the Children Act without the direct involvement of the Home Office, which is discharging its duties by commissioning providers, for example, that do not then have clear safeguarding responsibilities. The decision to do that lies with the Home Office, which wrote contracts that did not include safeguarding provision for these children. Unless we are clear that everybody involved in the care of these children from start to finish has a responsibility for their welfare, including the Secretary of State, as new clause 18 does, that gap will remain. In that gap, we have seen some horrific examples of what happens to these children not just with their access to education, but with sexual assault and other serious offences.
David Simmonds
The hon. Member very clearly highlights the fact that this is sometimes to a degree a grey area. I completely understand the position of the Home Office in that, sometimes in the early days of an emergency situation when there is nowhere else for a child to go to have a roof over their head, the accommodation and support provided do not meet the standards that apply. However, ensuring, as our laws require, that we very swiftly move to a situation where they do seems to be a reasonable expectation, and certainly one that would be upheld by the courts.
That point draws attention to the situation of children in transit through the United Kingdom who come to be unaccompanied children because the adults with whom they are travelling are s arrested or found to have no direct responsibility for the child with whom they are travelling. As I know the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will be aware, over the years at Heathrow airport, significant numbers of unaccompanied children have come into the care of a local authority not because they are seeking asylum, but, for example, because they are being trafficked into the sex trade on the continent from another country by way of the United Kingdom. Again, we need to ensure that appropriate care and support are provided for those children and young people, and that they are not simply placed into a process that is focused on immigration control when they being trafficked for nefarious purposes. All these issues are clearly fixable, and I am confident that the Government, once sighted on them, will be able to bring about their resolution.
I would like to finish with a note about the issue of “notwithstanding” clauses, which was much debated yesterday. One of the challenges I find is that in the case of a number of pieces of legislation, such as the Children Act and the Modern Slavery Act, it would be possible for the Government to say that, notwithstanding those provisions, they expect this Home Office process to be followed. Clearly, those are all matters within legislation of the United Kingdom passed by this sovereign Parliament, but it seems to me that there is a risk if we seek to introduce “notwithstanding” clauses to matters that are the subject of international law.
Any of us who has been the recipient of legal advice at any time in our working lives will be aware that, if we were to be offered a contract about which it was that said, “The other party has decided that, notwithstanding what it says in the contract, they don’t have to follow it if they choose not to, after the event”, we would not regard that as in any way sound. Therefore, it seems to me that there is a significant risk that, if we seek to apply “notwithstanding” clauses, we will get ourselves once again into a legal and reputational tangle. That would be more broadly addressed by looking at whether those international conventions are still fit for purpose.
Jonathan Gullis
I rise to speak to the amendments in my name: amendment 135, which intends to block courts from ordering individuals to be returned to the UK once removed; and amendment 136, which intends to restrict to the use of hotels. I put my name to other amendments that were debated yesterday, which I am proud to support.
First, I want to thank the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) for the assurances he gave yesterday evening at the Dispatch Box to meaningful engagement over the Easter recess to find a way forward on the amendments I signed or that are in my name. I look forward to working with him and colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). I will therefore not press any of my amendments to a Division this evening.
It is critical that the policy is delivered. In Stoke-on-Trent we understand generosity better than anyone, having 1,279 asylum seekers or illegal economic migrants in our great city. We have been a long-term member of the voluntary asylum dispersal scheme and now have 30% of that population purely in hotels in inappropriate places—directly opposite our railway station, right by levelling-up projects, undermining the work to regenerate and level up the great city of Stoke-on-Trent. It is abhorrent that this has been going on.
For far too long, Stoke-on-Trent has been at the forefront of stepping up and delivering. It was the fifth largest contributor to the asylum dispersal scheme and was voted the kindest city in the United Kingdom only last year. We as a city will do our fair share, but it is inappropriate that we continue to see more than 40,000 people illegally choose to put thousands of pounds in the hands of smuggling gangs when they are already in safe mainland France, to come across on small boats, needlessly risking their own lives and undermining our UK visa system, the rights of our borders and the democracy and sovereignty of this House. It is essential that we do everything we can.
When 73% of people voted to leave the European Union, they wanted to take back control of their laws and their borders. People in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke were outraged to see only yesterday the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights interfering in this place, giving their opinion from Strasbourg and Brussels, demanding that we vote this legislation down. Yet again, foreign dignitaries and foreign judges are trying to interfere with the democratic rights and processes of our great country. It is simply not acceptable. That is why it is so important that the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes is taken seriously. I would like it be fully supported. Ultimately, we must deliver this important legislation.
Jonathan Gullis
I will happily take an intervention at the end of my speech, as I promise to keep within the 10-minute limit that you have asked of me, Dame Rosie.
Amendment 135 is about the block on returns. If we are to ensure the offshoring of illegal migrants, we cannot see people return to our United Kingdom, because that will undermine the Rwanda policy and other world-leading schemes that I hope we will agree with other safe third countries. I support the Opposition wanting safe and legal routes and returns agreement. Like many, I was outraged that we gave £500 million of UK taxpayers’ money without getting a returns agreement with France directly. I fully endorse that. It is essential that the law makes it clear that if someone tries to make a last-minute claim to an upper tribunal and they are removed, they have no right to return. They may win damages in court, but the right to return must not be granted. If it is, that will undermine everything. The imagery will be shocking, and will be used by smugglers across mainland Europe as an advert for what could happen if people were lucky.
It is essential that we deliver on the important policy of hotels. Rightly, the British public are livid at seeing £6 million a day of their hard-earned British taxpayers’ money going to house people in hotels. It is totally unacceptable in places such as Stoke-on-Trent, where we have a thriving hospitality and tourism sector, which has been undermined by the use of the hotels. People are losing their jobs. At certain hotels, people have lost the ability to take their children to the swimming baths to learn how to swim. They are unable to go to the gym and other such facilities because, sadly, this abhorrent trade has carried on. In Staffordshire as a whole, nine hotels have been taken up. It is not something that anyone in this House wants, and I hope my amendments get widespread support.
I thank the Minister for his engagement and for the fact that plans will come forward soon for alternative places to move people out of hotels. I was delighted that my petition to end Serco’s abuse of Stoke-on-Trent, which I presented on the Floor of the House, gathered more than 2,000 signatures. We have seen continued movement from the Minister, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to find suitable accommodation in the short term until we implement, very soon I hope, the policy to get people deported to safe third countries such as Rwanda.
Stella Creasy
I will let the hon. Gentleman gather his breath. He made a strong case that he was concerned about the work of the European Court of Human Rights making judgments about overbearing Governments and trying to stand up for citizens. Does he, therefore, deplore the recent judgment by the European Court of Human rights—another rule 39 interim measure—in the cases of Pinner v. Russia and Ukraine and Aslin v. Russia and Ukraine? They concerned British nationals who were members of the armed forces in Ukraine, who had surrendered to Russian forces and been sentenced to death. The European Court of Human Rights got stuck in to stand up for British citizens. But by his logic, I assume that he would oppose that because he does not like such bodies standing up for citizens being oppressed by Governments.
Jonathan Gullis
Rule 39 interim measures were not part of the European convention on human rights when we signed it in 1950. While we have obligations under the convention, they should never trump the sovereignty of what happens in this Parliament. We are democratically elected parliamentarians who speak on behalf of our constituents—well, we do on the Government Benches—and that is important to understanding why we deliver such policies.
The hon. Lady talks about the European court of human rights, but let us not forget that 47% of ECHR judgments have not been complied with over the past 10 years. In Spain and Germany, it is 61% and 37% respectively. The UK is, I believe, at 18%, so we are better at upholding our ECHR obligations than most mainland European countries, of which I know the hon. Lady is a huge fan. She would love to see us return to the European Union, which she so avidly campaigned for and continues to make the case for privately, I am sure, within the parliamentary Labour party. I commend her bravery in taking that stance but, of course, the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke simply said, “No. Go away. Bye-bye, Labour”—hopefully for decades to come—after 70 years of failure, neglect and under-investment in our great area.
Returning to the debate, I thank Professor Richard Ekins of the University of Oxford and Sir Stephen Laws KC for their work with the Policy Exchange and for helping me and other colleagues with the changes we proposed today. When people are losing their jobs at hotels and the hospitality and tourism sectors of our towns and cities are being damaged, that undermines public confidence in our ability to deliver this policy. There are disused Army bases, and I have no issue with the use of portakabins or tents. They are perfectly acceptable short-term accommodation, so long as we deliver on the policy of ensuring that people are removed after 28 days to a safe third country. Rwanda is perfectly safe and has so far welcomed the fact that the UK Government have been so successful at explaining in UK domestic courts that our world-leading policy is something to be celebrated.
Despite the shadow Minister suggesting that this Government are worried about compliance, the fact that they are winning court battles on other legislation that was deemed to be on the line shows that they are confident that they will be on that side again. He talked about a Labour plan, but I am still searching for something other than processing people quicker, which would mean we would still accept seven out of 10 people coming here—70% of 45,000 would be completely unacceptable to the people of the United Kingdom—and would lead to smugglers advertising a 70% success rate. That is why I am unable to support many of Labour’s amendments today.
The only exception that intrigued me was the new clause—I forget the number—that proposed engagement with local authorities. However, the assurances that the Minister gave yesterday to one of my hon. Friends who tabled a similar amendment gave me confidence, and I will be unable to join Labour in the Lobby today. I am delighted that Councillor Abi Brown was brave enough to force this Government to remove the voluntary opt-in and ensure that all local authorities are part of the asylum dispersal scheme after threatening to legally withdraw from the scheme.
Thank you for the time, Dame Rosie, and apologies for going one minute over.
Sir John Hayes
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I have great respect for him, but I promised you that I would be brief, Dame Rosie, and I know that if I take interventions that will not be true, and I will break my promise. You would never forgive me for that and, worse still, you would not call me again.
I shall speak to some of the amendments that stand in my name, which I hope will help the Government in that endeavour. My amendments, along with those tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and for Stone (Sir William Cash), among others, are designed to improve the Bill rather than to frustrate the Government’s efforts. Indeed, they are framed in order to make the Bill work—for the Bill must work.
The British people are at the end of their tether, tired of a liberal establishment blinded by its own prejudices which seems oblivious to the needs of working-class Britons but ever more indulgent towards economic migrants and anyone else who comes from abroad, for that matter. The British people demand and deserve something better than that. They deserve a Government who take their concerns seriously.
Just in case there is any doubt about those concerns, I refer Members to the work of Professor Matthew Goodwin, professor of politics at the University of Kent, who has studied these matters. He has revealed the opinions of an immense number of voters in so-called red wall constituencies. You will remember, Dame Rosie, that those are the seats that Labour hopes to win back, but it will not, because they are in the hands of very able Conservative Members of Parliament, many of whom take a view of the Bill that is similar to mine, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North. Interestingly, 59% of people in those constituencies think that we
“should withdraw the right of asylum-seekers and illegal migrants who cross the Channel illegally in small boats to appeal against their deportation.”
That number
“jumps to more than three-quarters”
of 2019 Conservative voters and 39% of Labour voters. A large majority, six in 10, support
“stopping migrants in small boats from illegally crossing the Channel using any means necessary”.
Benjamin Disraeli said that
“justice is truth in action.”
My amendment 283 is designed to restore justice to our asylum system by affirming the truth. Little epitomises the anger felt by my constituents and many others about the unfairness of the system more than those economic migrants with no legal right to be here who arrive in Dover claiming to be younger than they are in order to game our asylum rules. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) pointed out when she was Home Secretary, in two thirds of age dispute cases, it has been found that an individual claiming to be a child is over—sometimes considerably over—the age of 18. This is a widespread problem.
Amendment 283 would introduce a scientific age assessment to ensure that those under 18 who need to seek shelter here can do so, as well as to find out those over 18 who lie to cheat our rules. The amendment is in keeping with the practices used in Europe by countries that verify the ages of those crossing their borders. The scientific age assessments used in many European countries for these purposes include dental and wrist X-rays in France, Finland and Norway, and CT or MRI scans in Sweden, Denmark and elsewhere.
I would be amazed if anyone who believed in the integrity of our asylum system opposed such an amendment, and I hope the Minister will confirm when he sums up that the Government intend to adopt it. Without such a change, we cannot properly break the business model of the people smugglers. These vile traffickers will simply tell the people whose lives they are risking to lie about their age to prevent them from being removed.
My amendments 129 and 130 would strengthen the Bill by ensuring that those who have no right to be here are swiftly removed. At present, the language in the Bill promises to “deport”. However, deportation is a distinct legal process from removal. Deportation is reserved for those who are a “risk to the public good”—typically foreign national offenders. By contrast, removal is a legal term for a process by which certain people may be removed from the UK, usually because they have breached immigration rules by remaining here illegally, but who do not necessarily pose a public risk or danger by so doing. Again, I hope that the Minister will enter into a discussion with me about how we can improve the Bill in that way and make it more effective.
I know, too, that the Minister will look at the amendments that aim to toughen the Bill further in terms of its language. Amendment 135, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, is vital as it will block courts from ordering that individuals who have been removed be return to the UK. If those removed to Rwanda were allowed to return to the UK following legal challenges, the deterrent gained from successfully sending them there would be diluted or lost altogether, so it is essential that those who want to join the small boats and the smugglers who organise their dangerous journeys know that the deterrent is credible.
Amendment 132 would ensure that other provisions of the Human Rights Act were disapplied. Right hon. and hon. Members know my view on the Human Rights Act: I would repeal it. And they know my view on the convention: I would leave it. But that is not what we are debating today, and it is not what these amendments seek to do. They simply aim to ensure that the Government’s policy, which has found form in this Bill which I hope is soon to be an Act, is not once again mired in appeals to foreign potentates and powers who will frustrate the will of the Government, this House and, more fundamentally, the British people.
I will not comment on amendments 139 and 140 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), except to say that they are arguably well-intentioned, but not necessarily so. A report last year, as my hon. Friend must know, showed that nearly two thirds of asylum seekers suspected of lying when they were unaccompanied children were found to be over 18. Of course care and sentiment matter, but we must exercise sense to avoid being naive about this subject.
For the sake of brevity, Dame Rosie, I will not say much more, except to conclude in this way: the British people want to deal with the boats. They want to restore order to our borders. They believe in the integrity of a system that determines whether someone is a genuine seeker of asylum in fear of persecution and in profound need or an economic migrant gaming the system in respect of their age. That is what the British people want, and that is what this Bill will do. By the way, just a quick word about judicial activism: it is a well-established concept and I would advise the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) to read about it in more detail, as he does not seem to have heard of it.
I say to the Minister that we must avoid listening to the bleats and cries of a bourgeois liberal establishment who will go out of their way to stop the Government doing what is just and right. I look forward to further engagement with him and, assuming that he says something sufficiently generous—indeed, slightly more than that; I would like to feel flattery—I will not press the amendments that stand in my name.
Stella Creasy
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), a knight of the realm, lecturing us all on being in touch with the people and on class warfare. What a dystopian vision he paints of this country. I will confine my remarks to the three amendments in my name, because he does not speak for the majority in this country with his callous disregard for people seeking sanctuary, and in his callous disregard for the evidence and facts.
Amendment 293 reflects the challenge set by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who complains about people with visas. He must be disappointed that the Illegal Migration Bill does nothing about people who overstay their visa, which is clearly illegal. If this Bill were actually about things that are illegal in our asylum system, it would tackle visa overstayers. The Bill says nothing about people traffickers, and it contains no further sanctions and makes no further efforts to catch organised crime gangs. I now realise why it does not, having heard how the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North objects to the European Court of Human Rights standing up for British citizens who face the death penalty—he could not even say that stopping people being sent to their death for standing up to Putin is a good thing.
Stella Creasy
I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, as long as he will clarify on the record that his comments about me were mistaken. I am sure that he would not wish to malign somebody’s good reputation, even if he disagreed with them.
Jonathan Gullis
I do not remember seeing the hon. Lady on the streets of the west midlands, campaigning to vote leave in the 2016 referendum, so I feel confident that my comments about her being a pro-European are perfectly acceptable.
When the Minister came to the Dispatch Box with regard to the 200 missing children, he said that 95% of them were 16 to 17 years old—smugglers encourage people who they think can get away with looking that age—and 88% were Albanians. Why would any parent spend £4,500 on sending their child here illegally on a small rubber boat, when they could go on an aeroplane for £30? Also, it is important to understand that the Minister made clear that there was no evidence that any of those 200 had been kidnapped—they left of their own accord.
Stella Creasy
When the Immigration Minister was dismissing concerns about locking children up, suggesting that they probably were not children because of concerns about age verification, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)—I am sorry that he is no longer in his place—used a gentle phrase that his mother might say: “Have a long look in the mirror.” Well, I suggest that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North gives his head a wobble for what he has just said about children who have gone missing; 16 and 17-year-olds are children—[Interruption.] He is chuntering from a sedentary position. If those children turn up, I hope to goodness that they all turn up safe and well, because if they do not, what the hon. Member has just said will come back to haunt him—[Interruption.] He can keep shouting all he likes, but the vast majority of the British public are horrified by the idea that 200-plus children have gone missing from hotels that the Home Office was supposed to be overseeing.
There is due to be a public inquiry into the Manston centre. The Government have accepted that because of possible article 3 breaches—basically, concerns about how we were treating pregnant women and young children going into Manston—but that investigation has not yet happened and cannot yet inform this legislation. Clause 11 extends detention for families and pregnant women, and clause 14 removes the duty to consult the independent family returns panel about the treatment of children. Children are under the age of 18; we accept that in law.
We have provisions in law—on, for example, the use of bed and breakfasts—that have not been mirrored to date in our treatment of children who have come in through this system. I can hear why in the callous disregard of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, but I go back to this simple principle: whatever we think of the parents of these children, we should not be punishing children by agreeing in law that they have second-class citizenship. That is what this legislation will do to refugee children.
Stella Creasy
The Minister is shaking his head, but there is a very simple answer, because all new clause 18 does is commit to parity. It says that we should treat every single child on UK soil with the same concerns. We could safeguard every single child.
Stella Creasy
I will happily give way, but then I want to finish because I promised Dame Rosie that I would be brief.
Alexander Stafford
Everyone wants children to be safe: nobody wants a child to be living in a hotel; and, fundamentally, nobody wants a child to make a very dangerous crossing in a small boat. The safest place for a child is not to make that crossing. There are safe and legal routes, which we should try to focus on, rather than encouraging people smugglers to take children on the channel. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is the worst thing for a child?
Stella Creasy
Nobody is encouraging the smugglers. Given the heat that has been generated in this Chamber, it is important to recognise that nobody across the House supports the smugglers. Equally, there are no safe and legal routes. The example of Iran proves that very clearly. The fact that the Minister does not seem to understand that is troubling. If a child does come here, what happens to them? New clause 18 would provide parity of treatment for all children resident in the United Kingdom—for example in the rules around bed and breakfasts and putting a child in with a single adult. If the hon. Gentleman were to find that happening in his constituency, he would probably, rightly, challenge his local authority about it. Why are we saying that, because a child has refugees as parents, it does not matter how they are treated? That is what this legislation is saying. All new clause 18 is looking for is parity. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North may disregard those children, but I wager that there are other Members in this Chamber who recognise that when it comes to children, we have responsibilities and obligations.
I hope that, in his summing up, the Minister will say on the record that, yes, absolutely, the same standards of safeguarding will apply. The Home Office failed to put safeguarding in the contracts. I had to use a freedom of information request to get the contract from his Department to be able to check it. I did check it, because the Minister does not do his own homework, so somebody else has to. The contract very clearly does not mention it. [Interruption.] It is not a fantasy. What is a fantasy are the figures that the Home Secretary and the Minister just came up with on the safe and legal routes from Iran. Perhaps the Minister might want to reflect on that and on what the UK Statistics Authority said about the Home Office’s relationship with the truth when it comes to the numbers and to asylum.
I wish to finish simply by urging the Government to stay on the record. If I am wrong, they should correct me. They could say that every single child in this country will be covered by safeguarding, and that the Home Office itself will take a direct safeguarding duty for these children. It would not be that difficult.
Stella Creasy
I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has made his feelings clear, even if he has taken the Shelley’s grandmother approach to communicating any sense about them. What matters now is that this Government speak up for every single child, because, if they do not, I promise that there are people in this House who will continue to do it no matter how much barracking we get, because every child matters.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dame Rosie. I would like to echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said earlier about how strongly people feel about this issue. He provided the statistics to back that up. Some 35% of all policy inquiries to my office last week related to this issue of illegal migration and small boats. People often say to me, “You are in the middle of the country in Mansfield, so why do people care?” It is a simple matter of fairness. It is a massive Government commitment. One of the Prime Minister’s key pledges to the people of this country was to tackle the issue of small boats.
The people of Mansfield are generous, but they believe in the rules and they believe in law and order. They are happy to help those people who follow the rules, but when they are struggling and when they see people facing genuine safeguarding and personal safety issues, they feel the unfairness when they see others coming from the safe country of France and jumping the queue. When they are sat on housing waiting lists and unable to get a home, but someone who has no legal right to be here is able to get accommodation, they feel that unfairness. It is very easy for us in this Chamber, none of whom, I would imagine, rely heavily on our public services, to say that there is no negative impact to all of this. In reality, though, if a person is on that housing waiting list and unable to get a permanent home for themselves or their family, if they are struggling to access primary care, if they are told that they cannot get the help that they need, if they are sacked from their job at a hotel because it has become a migrant accommodation, or if they are seeing public funds intended to support people in this country being diverted to support people who have no legal right to be here, then, of course, they feel the unfairness. To suggest that that is not a problem is to deny the experience of many of my constituents, and of many people around the country, who feel that very strongly.
Robert Jenrick
People do come here directly from places of danger. The hon. Lady is incorrect. We have long-standing arrangements for those people who transit through other countries to come here, so her point is wrong.
The wider issue, which she and I have debated on many occasions, is that we have heard continuously from her and her SNP colleagues a kind of humanitarian nimbyism. They come to this Chamber to say how concerned they are for those in danger around the world, yet they take disproportionately fewer of those very people into their care in Scotland.
Let me turn to the serious questions that have been raised about children. We approach these issues with the seriousness that they deserve and from the point of view that the UK should be caring and compassionate to any minor who steps foot on these shores. These are not easy choices, but the challenge we face today is that large numbers of minors are coming to the United Kingdom at the behest of human traffickers or people smugglers, and we have to deter that. We must break the cycle of that business model.
Since 2019, the number of unaccompanied minors coming to the UK has quadrupled, meaning that thousands of unaccompanied minors have been placed in grave danger in dinghies and then brought to the UK, in some cases to enter the black economy and in others for even more pernicious reasons. I have met those children. I have seen them at Western Jet Foil, and I can tell the House that there is no dignity in that situation. As a parent, seeing children in dinghies risking their lives is one of the most appalling things one could see. I want to stop that. The measures we are bringing forward today intend to stop that.
We are going to do this in the most sensitive manner we can, and the powers that we are bringing forward under the Bill do just that. The duty to make arrangements for removal does not apply to unaccompanied children until they become adults. There is a power, not a duty, to remove unaccompanied children. As a matter of policy, the power to remove will be exercised only in very limited circumstances, such as for the purposes of family reunion, or if they are nationals of a safe country identified in clause 50 and can be safely returned to their home country. It is important to stress at this point that that power is already in law and is used on occasion when an unaccompanied child arrives and we are able to establish arrangements for their safe return. The Illegal Migration Bill simply expands the number of countries deemed safe for that removal.
Stella Creasy
The Government have accepted that they will be subject to an article 3 investigation to see whether there have been breaches of the Human Rights Act at Manston—basically the treatment of people in inhumane and degrading ways. The Government are resisting that being an independent inquiry. Why not wait until that inquiry happens? Why not learn the lessons of how they got into the mess at Manston before moving forward with this legislation, so that we do not risk again seeing pregnant women and unaccompanied children in the dinghies and in the devastation that the Minister just set out? Why press ahead without learning the lessons of his previous failures?
Robert Jenrick
Nobody could dispute the seriousness with which I took the situation at Manston in the autumn, or dispute that the situation we are in today is incomparably different. Manston is a well-run facility, led by a superb former Army officer, Major General Capps, and we are ensuring that the site is both decent and legal. Responsibility for the failures at Manston in the autumn of last year does not rest with the Government. It does not rest with the people who work at Manston. It rests with the people smugglers and the human traffickers. It was a direct result of tens of thousands of people coming into our country illegally in a short period of time.
I can tell the hon. Lady that the same thing will happen again if we do not break the cycle and stop the boats. More people will come later this year. She knows that the numbers are estimated to rise this year unless we take robust action. That is what this Bill sets out to achieve. If we take this action, fewer people will put themselves in danger and fewer children will be in this situation. That is what I want to see, and I think that is what the British public want to see as well.
Illegal Migration Bill
Stella Creasy ExcerptsMonday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 27 March 2023 - (27 Mar 2023)
Tim Loughton
I think I have made the point that whatever migration system we run needs to be effective, efficient and sustainable, but at the same time we need people to fill job vacancies in this country, and many of the people who have come here are self-sustaining. I had a meeting this afternoon with about 60 Hong Kong British national overseas passport holders who came here in flight from Hong Kong, and they are making a good go of starting a second life in this country. However we think we should operate migrant numbers, the numbers are not the important thing. It is being able to look after people safely and sustainably for all of our community that is the major consideration.
The other truth that is put about that we need to challenge is that the European convention on human rights is everything. If we look at the record of the judgments issued under the ECHR by the European Court of Human Rights in the last 10 years, we see that 47% of them—almost half—have not been complied with. In certain countries that figure is higher. For example, 61% of judgments again Spain from the European Court of Human Rights have not been complied with, and for Italy it is 58%, while for Germany it is 37%. In many cases—particularly France, where the figure is a little bit lower—they are mostly for non-compliance with immigration laws. So let us not try and kid ourselves that the measures in this Bill are in some way completely absurd and out of court compared with what other countries have been doing.
Having said all that, doing nothing is not an option. It allows people smugglers to continue the human misery. It is condoning bogus asylum seekers, and it is allowing those bogus asylum seekers to bump the queue of genuine asylum seekers to whom we do have a duty of care that the vast majority of people in this country want to see carried out. So we need to get the balance right on continuing our generous tradition of allowing safe haven for genuine asylum seekers escaping danger with much more robust action to clamp down on those who have no legitimate claim to be resident in the UK. They are gaming our system, taking advantage of the UK taxpayer’s generosity and, worst of all, queue-jumping over the genuine asylum seekers who need help.
This is where safe and legal routes and the main amendment I am putting forward today come in, and I will be prepared to press it to a vote unless I have some substantial reassurances from the Government, because this is nothing new and it is not rocket science. It is actually something that the Prime Minister has quite rightly committed to in principle. My new clause 13, which is the basis of the safe and legal routes amendments, would require safe and legal routes to be part of this legislation. The regulations referred to in the Bill would have to set out specific safe and legal routes by which asylum seekers can enter the United Kingdom in an orderly and sustainable way.
The routes specified must include any country-specific schemes that we have already. Specifically, we have routes for Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine and Hong Kong, but we need additional ones. Additionality is key to this, because as the Bill stands, the Government could just say, “Well, we’ve got those safe and legal routes, and we can just tinker with those.” However, let us take the example of the 16-year-old orphan boy from east Africa —he is not from Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria or Hong Kong—who has a single relative legally settled in the United Kingdom. There are precious few opportunities for him to be able to come to the UK on a safe and legal route. It is in such cases that we need to offer an opportunity, capped in numbers and capped with all sorts of considerations. We need to offer such people a realistic opportunity that they may be able to get safe haven in the United Kingdom.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I very much support what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, I support the need for such amendments to this Bill, probing or otherwise, to clarify what a safe and legal route is and how such routes will operate, because that seems to be at the heart of whether this legislation can actually achieve anything that it claims to set out to do. Does he therefore agree with me that we need clarity, because this Bill does set out where it considers it is safe to be from and, by definition, everywhere not listed in proposed new section 80AA is unsafe? We therefore need clarity about what would be a safe and legal route from the locations not listed in that proposed new section, because otherwise we will end up with “safe” or “unsafe” being ill-defined in legislative terms, and that does not help anybody.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I have drawn up new clause 13 and the accompanying amendments in a way that is not overly prescriptive. It puts the onus back on the Government to come up with schemes, some of which will be safe and legal route schemes that we have run before. The family reunion scheme is something we have run for a long time, although it needs to be adapted outside of the Dublin conventions. I have also suggested a Dubs II scheme and, again, the Dubs scheme was very successful in bringing 483 unaccompanied single children from genuine danger zones safely to the United Kingdom. Those are the sorts of examples I mean. They do not need to create something completely new. We need to adapt what we already have.
That is why additionality is key. These need to be routes on which people from outside the four existing resettlement or asylum schemes can come here. The Government must set out those routes for both adults and children—I think most of us would agree that children need to be dealt with slightly differently—and the means by which those people can access those routes. It may be from the countries from which they are fleeing or from refugee camps, in a scheme like those we have had before jointly with the UNHCR. I think that is what has been mooted in the newspapers—it did not come from me—about 20,000 people being able to come here through agreement with the UNHCR, and that is another possibility. It may be through using reception centres that we have in other countries, including France, where a limited number could possibly apply, subject to a cap. Again, that is all for the Government to decide—I do not want to be overly prescriptive.
Stella Creasy
One of the reasons why Winston Churchill helped to set up the European Court of Human Rights was to protect citizens across Europe, including in the UK, from overbearing Governments who did not have respect for the role of courts in keeping them honest. With the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, let us see some honesty: is he saying that he, in contrast to the Prime Minister, wants us to leave the ECHR? If the amendment were passed, it would mean our having to, and we would be in the same position as Belarus. Will he be honest: does he want us to be Belarus?
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend is right, of course. In a sense, his comments reflect the remarks of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, but the spirit, character and reputation that Britain enjoys depend on both lawfulness and propriety. It is not unreasonable to suggest that our generosity should be defined by proper rules and standards.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) challenged the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale on the issue of people not bringing documents, I was left to wonder, as others may have been, why on earth a legitimate asylum seeker who is pleased to come here on the basis he outlined would want to discard the documents that would prove their case. Why would they do that? That is the kind of question my constituents ask me. I have to conclude that many people disguise their identity and discard their documents not because they want to make it more straightforward for the Home Office to deal with their claim, for clearly it would not make it more straightforward, but because they have something to hide.
Last year, 33% of the people arriving in small boats were from Albania. That proportion has now fallen because the Government have done something about it. So much for inefficient Ministers and the inefficient Home Office. They dealt with the Albania issue, and they will now deal with this issue with equal alacrity and skill.
Stella Creasy
I fear the right hon. Gentleman may have misread the statistics, because it was Afghans who made up 33% of arrivals. Between October and December 2022, only 9% of small boat arrivals were Albanian.
Perhaps, as a general principle, we should not try to process claims in the Chamber. We should look at the evidence. Many of us who deal with asylum seekers have had that conversation, about why papers are missing, and we have been told very clearly that the traffickers tell them to tear up and remove their papers because that makes it easier for the traffickers. When was the last time the right hon. Gentleman spoke to someone who came to the UK by an irregular route and who did not have their paperwork? What did they tell him? Can he tell us about the evidence he has from actually working with these people and understanding the pressures they are under?
Laura Farris
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which brings me to my final argument.
Wrenching change from either the applicability of the Human Rights Act or the jurisdiction of the Court is a dangerous path to go down. The European convention on human rights is fundamental to the devolution settlements in Wales and Northern Ireland, and it also plays a distinct role in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. As we are so near to the 25th anniversary of that agreement, I want to read out how the European convention on human rights was framed as an integral safeguard:
“There will be safeguards to ensure that all sections of the community can participate and work together successfully in the operation of these institutions and that all sections of the community are protected, including…the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)…which neither the Assembly nor public bodies can infringe”.
At the time of the conclusion of that agreement, there was a climate of deep scepticism about British courts following the establishment of, for example, Diplock courts and other things that were controversial. The European Court of Human Rights is not just something to which lip service is paid; it is integral to the proper functioning of that agreement.
I must mention our proud history in the formation and construction of the European convention on human rights—it is well known that David Maxwell Fyfe was a Conservative MP. It is unsurprising, then, that we are one of the states with the lowest number of adverse findings. We should be very wary of quick fixes. We said throughout the Brexit debate that we would be taking back control of our borders, but it is more complex than that. My point tonight is that leaving the convention, or derogating from it, is not the answer. That will not do the job and will undermine the effect of the Bill, which I think will be upheld as lawful by the European Court of Human Rights in the event that it is referred there.
Stella Creasy
I wish to reassure the Committee that I will speak only to the amendments that have been selected for this evening—I know that we have debates on other amendments scheduled tomorrow, and I have amendments in both selections.
I beg your leave, Dame Eleanor, to reflect on the fact that, while this important debate has been taking place, Jess England, a member of my staff, has just won parliamentary staffer of the year. Jess has first-hand knowledge of the things that we are discussing because she has for years helped me work with people seeking asylum—refugees from around the world who have come to the UK and have a connection to Walthamstow. I put on the record my gratitude to Jess, whose award is long overdue. If she were here now, she could bring much light to this debate as somebody who knows about the reality for people fleeing persecution.
It is a genuine honour to follow the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris). We may be in different political parties, but I recognise how brave she has just been to make that speech and to speak up for the importance of human rights, which has increasingly become an extreme view in the Conservative movement. I recognise the power of her speech and its many points, and the expertise that she put on the record. The House benefits from light, not heat, in such debates.
There is clarity in that there is not a single Member among us who wants to help the smugglers; not a single Member among us thinks that small boats crossing the English channel is an acceptable or reasonable way to proceed. The difference is in how we address the issue; whether we pour oil on that fire or seek, in our amendments, to recognise the best of Britain—to be the actual patriots in this Chamber. So far, we have talked so much about the ways people travel, but not about who is travelling.
Different statistics have been bandied around. We know that the vast majority of people in those boats are from seven countries, so let us recognise first and foremost why it matters that the legislation meets the test not of the mode of travel but of who is travelling. People fleeing persecution do not form orderly queues at the border when there is a war. When they are facing persecution for their political or religious beliefs, they cannot turn to the state to ask for their paperwork to be put in order and emailed to them so that they may cross the border with copies of it.
I reflect on the fact that the former Member for Blackburn, who was responsible for incorporating the Human Rights Act into UK legislation used to say to me, “There was left and right in Parliament, and then there were those people who dealt with the UK Border Agency and those who did not.” When dealing with people who have fled persecution, we know at first hand that it is not a simple, straightforward linear experience that accommodates well the kind of bureaucracy and administrative process that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) wishes for. That is why the refugee convention itself says that refugees should not be prosecuted for destroying their documents, for issues around immigration fraud or, indeed, for their mode of travel, recognising the reality that when the decision is life or death, life matters. I see no irony in suggesting that.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is making a really important point, which is not pertinent only to the small boats. We witnessed exactly the same issue with Ukraine. People were fleeing Ukraine in fear of their lives; we opened up safe routes, but many of those people had to leave all their important documentation behind.
Stella Creasy
I agree. Some of us are still dealing with people from Afghanistan—people who put their lives on the line to help British forces but have not been able to come here. They listen to the Minister talk about the idea that somehow we have taken 25,000 people under the schemes. We have not—their families are still stuck. If the Minister wants the casework, I have raised on the record before the case of a family who were split up on the way to the Baron hotel.
Stella Creasy
If the Minister will take the casework, I will take the intervention. That family need to be here.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady cannot trade in anecdote rather than facts. The facts of the matter are that the scheme has taken 25,000 individuals since just before the fall of Kabul. Those are the facts. As I always say to the hon. Lady, I am very happy to look into individual cases. But in this Chamber, we should deal in facts—not fiction.
Stella Creasy
The Minister knows that that is not how the scheme has worked; he knows that only 22 people have been resettled. He already has in his inbox the case I mentioned—it is long overdue his attention. Every single day, I think about that family. They were told that they should go to the Baron hotel. They could not get there because there was an explosion. They are now separated—the family are in hiding and the father is here, desperate and out of his mind about what to do. He was promised a safe and legal route by this Government, but of that promise there came no reality.
That is why I cannot support this Bill in its current form. First and foremost, it does nothing to the smugglers themselves. We all agree that the smugglers are the people we want to stop. Why is there not a single measure in the Bill that directly affects them? The idea that we can cut off their market does not recognise that we have seen these kinds of measures before. All that happens is the prices go up. People disappear; modern slavery increases.
Stella Creasy
Of course I give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say.
Sir John Hayes
When we tackle illegal immigration, we are doing several things. We are attacking it at source by getting to the smugglers, we are dealing with the issues in the channel and on the coast, and we are creating a legislative framework fit for purpose. They are separate parts of a strategy.
Stella Creasy
I look forward to having a debate with the right hon. Gentleman tomorrow about my amendment 293, which would remove the word “Illegal” from the title of the Bill. It is not illegal to seek asylum. What he is talking about is not what the Bill will do. I have tried to urge him before not to process people’s claims in the Chamber; this is about the evidence of what we see.
I have multiple anecdotes about people who have been failed by our asylum system, the processing and the promises they were given of a safe and legal route. That is why this evening I wish to speak to the amendments about safe and legal routes. If the Government think this legislation is about illegal migration, by default there must be a legal process—so those safe and legal routes deserve much more scrutiny and attention. The Government have failed to provide a children’s rights assessment and equality impact assessment. It is so worrying that they are asking us to trust them when they cannot set out how they think people who are entitled to seek asylum because they are fleeing persecution should do so.
When I look at this Bill, I see that it needs a drastic overhaul even to meet its own ambitions or the pledges in article 31 of the refugee convention that somebody destroying their documents should not be penalised by the suggestion that their claim must be malicious. We should look at the actual evidence as to why smugglers encourage them to do that. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings suggests that somehow the Bill will do what the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 failed to do and what this Government’s policies keep failing to do. Let us learn from Einstein—that most famous refugee, who this country turned away. He said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
My new clause 17 is a probing one, on that basis. If the Government talk about safe and legal routes, we should know what those are intended to do. It simply says that the Government should set out what a safe and legal route is and which countries are therefore unsafe and require a legal route. After all, the Bill sets out countries considered to be safe. Ergo, all the countries not listed must be unsafe. The Government should tell us in Parliament how people should be able to access those routes and therefore not make dangerous journeys.
I also support new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) in new clause 10. We would all agree that all these new clauses need further work, but they all get towards a simple principle: to ask what is the role of a safe and legal route in this legislation. If the Bill is about illegal migration, what is the point of safe and legal routes? My amendment 138, which will be debated tomorrow, is about how that might then play a role in asylum processing itself.
There is a simple message in all this work. I agree with the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash); that might surprise people, and I am sorry he is not in the Chamber to hear it. He said that the processing and assessing of claims matters. Absolutely, and that is why the failures we have seen for a number of years have not been to do with the refugees themselves but to do with the politicians and their failure to get to grips with this. That is why it matters that the Government are not using the correct figures from the statistics authority. They are not showing us the true scale of the problem, which legislation has consistently failed to deal with. That is why we need to do something different, such as clarifying what a safe and legal route is and how it fits into the refugee convention and our processing. In a war, there are not simple processes of admin and bureaucracy that we can push people towards, so it matters all the more that we respect and recognise that in how we treat people who still think that life is better than death and who still choose to run.
I say to some Conservative Members that one of the top countries from which the people in the boats come is Iran. I have sat in this Chamber and heard people call out the Iranian Government and speak of their concern about the persecution of people in Iran. Not half an hour later, those people talk about how awful anybody in the boats is, although Iranians are the third most common country represented in them. There is no safe route from Iran.
Stella Creasy
The Minister says there is. I am in touch with people right now, brave defenders of democracy, who have no route out and are at risk.
Robert Jenrick
Since 2015, the UK has taken more than 6,000 Iranians directly for asylum purposes. What the hon. Lady says is simply not true.
Stella Creasy
The Minister needs to be clear about how those people have been identified. There are people tonight in Tehran at direct risk of harm and needing our help. The challenge with this legislation is that it refuses to set out a safe and legal route, saying that it will be done in secondary guidance. None of us can therefore be confident enough to say to those people, “Hold up—wait for the queue and the bureaucracy. There is somewhere for you to go. Don’t worry, because help is coming.”
The Government must connect with international organisations and uphold the international rule of law. The honest truth is that the only way the world will be able to stand up to dictators and persecutors and against war is by collaborating. We have seen that in such a powerful way in Ukraine, yet we do not seem to be capable of learning the lessons by setting out schemes and being able to say to people, “Actually, there is a way forward, and we will all share the burden of standing up for these values.” That is what a sensible asylum policy would do, because it would be effective. We would cut off the boats at source by having proper, safe and legal routes for people so that they would not need to get on a boat to claim in the first place. Irregular routes are inevitable because of why people are running in the first place.
I also want to speak briefly to amendments 131 and 132—I pay testament to the Member who spoke to me previously about them—which are about our role in the European Court of Human Rights. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) is not here, because I was hoping he might want a chance to clarify his earlier remark, in which he genuinely tried to suggest that Winston Churchill opposed us being part of the European Court of Human Rights. As somebody who served on the Council of Europe and repeatedly saw pictures of Winston Churchill—
Stella Creasy
I will, if the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my sentence; I am sure he wishes to hear what I have to say. I thought it was worth hearing from the man himself, because his argument for a European Court of Human Rights was that:
“In the centre of our movement”—
don’t tell anybody that he wanted a united Europe—
“stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law.”
What Winston Churchill saw then, we still see now, which is overbearing Governments who do not respect the courts of law and do not want the scrutiny of law. These amendments speak to precisely that fear: that legislation in this country might be poorly drafted, burdensome or, indeed, oppressive. What we all want, and what we would find common cause with Winston Churchill on—that does not happen often—is the importance of keeping politicians honest by putting them up to the scrutiny of the courts. Now I will happily give way, to see how the hon. Gentleman feels he can be honest and whether he wants to support these amendments and take that point away.
Tom Hunt
I will attempt to answer on behalf of my colleague, the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), who I spoke to earlier about this. One of his key points was that what the late Sir Winston Churchill signed up in 1950 did not involve rule 39 audits. The way in which the situation has evolved means that what we are dealing with today is totally different from the situation that faced this country in 1950, so to make that comparison is crude, and it is wrong. I am sure that when my hon. Friend comes back and makes a further intervention at some point, either today or tomorrow, he will powerfully deal with the critique that the hon. Member has just put in front of him.
Stella Creasy
I hope that the hon. Member for Devizes is at dinner, because after having made that speech, I am sure he needs something to eat. I simply say that that was not what Winston Churchill stood up for—as those of us who have served on the Council of Europe and read his speeches in detail know—let alone subsequent Conservative Governments. Those Governments were part of the development of the Council of Europe, where we did not just scrutinise the judges but helped appoint them and vote for them: we had a direct role in choosing them. That does not accord with what the hon. Gentleman was arguing, which was that this is out of kilter. Every single step of the way, the United Kingdom has been part and parcel of developing the European Court of Human Rights—and rightly so, frankly, because the libertarian in me speaks up for the Court. If given the temptation to be overbearing, without scrutiny and without the courts to keep them honest, Governments of all colours will do things that none of us think right.
Simon Hoare
Is it not an unassailable truth that the fundamental principles that drove Churchill, the Conservative party and this place to support these initiatives remain as true today as they did those years ago? Of course, it has been a living, iterative, organic process, but the fundamental underpinning principles that established it still remain true, and if Churchill were here today, he would be making precisely that point.
Stella Creasy
I think we have all expounded quite clearly on how that the interpretation that the hon. Member for Devizes sought to set out of what Churchill thought might not be an entirely complete representation of what that gentleman—he made sure that we were among the first signatories to the European Court of Human Rights, and he continued to campaign and lobby for it and its development and evolution up until his death—would in fact have thought.
Stella Creasy
I will happily give way, but then I really must bring my remarks to an end.
Yasmin Qureshi
The thing I am having difficulty understanding is this. We signed the European convention on human rights, and we have signed many other international conventions. If we are not going to abide by the rules of those conventions, why did we sign them?
Stella Creasy
My colleague sets out the other, more pragmatic point that I would like to put on the record, which is that actually it does not matter what Churchill thought. If we want to resolve how people are travelling around the world to seek safety and sanctuary because they are fleeing persecution—if we want to be a grown-up on the world stage—not upholding international law is not the best way to make sure that we are in the room when decisions are made about how to share that burden.
I am pleased that the Prime Minister himself has said that he has no plans for us to leave the European Court of Human Rights, because I think it does reflect a recognition that we need to uphold international law and to be part of those conversations. The answer to the Government’s concerns is not this legislation; it is to go to the Council of Europe and be part of those debates and discussions about the role of the Court and how it operates; it is to show that we are prepared to fight for our values, not just here but internationally. We can then arrange the kinds of schemes that will be inevitable in making sure that we, as a world, can deal with the conflict and disruption that means that there are more people fleeing persecution. It is to say that this is not to do with somebody’s nationality or how they travel, but the risk that they face. That is the most simple and, frankly, patriotic point.
Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill
Stella Creasy ExcerptsFriday 24th March 2023
(1 year, 8 months 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 Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 March 2023 - (24 Mar 2023)
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise as the person who tabled the original amendments in Committee that prefigured new clause 1, to recognise this as the best of Parliament. When we come together to write legislation we believe will make a positive and constructive difference to people, listening to each other’s concerns and recognising the positive pare that scrutiny can play in the process, it can bear fruits that we can all support. I welcome and support new clause 1 as a recognition that there was a concern and an issue with the concept of reasonableness being at the heart of public order offences. Let me clarify what I mean by that.
Let me clarify what I mean by that: this legislation is about harassment, and other forms of harassment legislation have always had within them a test that someone’s behaviour cannot be considered reasonable if general opinion would be that their behaviour was unreasonable. In layman’s terms, when it comes to the harassment that we are talking about, if someone were being followed down the street and shouted at—particularly about their sex or presumed sex—even if that person were to claim it was reasonable, a magistrate should be able to say that it was patently not. The person responsible should not be able to evade prosecution under this legislation. However, this Bill was originally based on public order offences legislation, which does not include that distinction about whether somebody ought to know that their behaviour was unreasonable.
It is very welcome that the Government have listened and agreed to put out guidance to consider that point. I hope that setting out what I believe that guidance should cover will be a helpful guide to the Government, and perhaps will answer the genuine queries from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) about whether there can be involvement in it. For many of us, getting this issue right goes to the heart of how this legislation will deliver the effective freedom that we hope for particularly, but not exclusively, for women, as it is women who are overwhelmingly reporting the kind of incidents that we are talking about in this legislation.
One of the challenges will be the initial decision as to whether someone has committed an offence. Many of us are extremely used to the idea that the challenge is our reaction to someone’s provocation, rather than the provocation. I hope that new clause 1 will recognise that, consistent with other forms of harassment legislation, a defendant arguing that their behaviour is reasonable should not be a reason not to proceed with a charge. I want to be clear about that, because I understand why people would be concerned. No one is suggesting that the reasonableness defence should not remain; we are arguing that it should for the courts or the magistrates to decide whether the behaviour was reasonable, rather than the defendant. In setting out the guidance, I hope that the Government will give weight to the idea that the presentation of a reasonableness defence, which is quite frequent in harassment cases but not necessarily in public order offences, should not deter the CPS or the police from seeking to proceed with a prosecution. In that sense, it would be consistent with the guidance on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
In reference to some of the amendments tabled, agree with the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) about the importance of consistency in the law. I add my support to his argument about retaining the provision on presumed sex within the Bill. The most important thing about this legislation is that it turns the lens from the behaviour of victims—women in particular, because although this legislation covers both men and women, and male and female perpetrators, women will particularly benefit from our clarifying that street-based harassment is unacceptable and is illegal already, and therefore carries a higher penalty if it is targeted in this way. Too often, the victim’s behaviour has been called into question in decisions whether to prosecute. It important that the legislation is written in such a way to turn our attention back to the perpetrator. Were we to have loopholes, whether around reasonableness or the status of the victim, we could inadvertently undermine the capacity of the police and the CPS to secure that outcome.
I recognise the attempts from the hon. Member for Christchurch to test the legislation. If he read the scrutiny of the legislation in Committee, he would appreciate that, because that is where new clause 1 has derived from. I hope he will understand that many of us feel that the changes he suggests would undermine the Bill, because it would not be as clear that our sole concern is the people who harass, intimidate and abuse other people in public because they are focused on the sex or presumed sex of the victim. The important message that we want to send by passing this legislation is that the existing crimes should not be diminished, ignored and seen as part of everyday life, and that we should address them.
That is what I wanted to say, as the person who originally drafted the amendment that has led to new clause 1. I also recognise the cross-party working to get this legislation right. I hope that those who had concerns about new clause 1 or other parts of the legislation will see the benefit of having had these discussions, and that the Bill will benefit many of our constituents as a result.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who I know takes a great interest in this particular subject. I am delighted that she included in her remarks a reference to the fact that this legislation applies equally to men who are victims as it does to women who are victims.
Chris Philp
It is occasionally possible for the Government to come up with something perfect straight away, but I accept that that does not always occur. The process that my hon. Friend just set out, where the Government might publish a draft and invite comments on it, either informally or via a formal consultation, seems to me a sensible way of arranging matters.
Stella Creasy
One of the concerns behind much of this is about consistency in the law. With other forms of harassment legislation, how reasonableness is defined is already written in. I invite the Minister to consider whether the important thing is not to come up with a whole new set of guidelines, but simply to clarify and be consistent in how we expect courts and juries to consider that concept when somebody claims, “I thought my behaviour was reasonable,” and the law says, “Well, you ought to have known,” in other forms of harassment legislation. This is not about a new piece of guidance; it is about clarifying matters so that we do not inadvertently damage the ways in which our courts can work. For example, the CPS guidance on the Serious Crime Act 2015 talks about how defendants “ought to know” about the course of conduct—again, with oblique directions that judges can give. There is plenty of guidance out there; we really just need to compile it into one document, do we not?
Stella Creasy
This Bill has been a long time in gestation. It reflects years of campaigning about a simple concept, clearly articulated by the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), and the surprise that those not affected by it feel when they realise and see it: that misogyny is driving crimes against women and girls. It is a simple statement but a clear recognition, for the first time ever in legislation, that women are being targeted simply because they are women; that young girls in our society walk holding their keys, get asked, “What were you wearing?”, are told not to get on buses at a certain time of night, and are made to feel frightened and to be wary in a way that young men are not.
I want to address head-on the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) because I agree with him that we have to stand up for our young men. We have to stand up for the bulk of young men who know when they see that and who realise what is happening to their sisters, mums, friends in school, aunties and cousins, and how awful it must be that 51% of our society does not have the same freedom to go about their daily business. Those young men deserve better than the idea that somehow this kind of behaviour is inevitable and that “boys will be boys.” In passing this legislation today, we are standing up not just for men and boys, because the legislation covers men and women equally, but for that quiet majority of young and older men who recognise that this behaviour is completely unacceptable, that it is criminal and that, for too long, nothing has been done about it.
I know that the hon. Member for Christchurch is somebody who very much cares about the evidence, so let me give him the detail. Where those police forces have been taking seriously crimes that are motivated by sex or presumed sex and are recording that data, the story they tell is compelling for why the legislation matters. Twelve of the 43 police forces in England and Wales now use this policy. The crime survey for England and Wales found there were 67,000 reports of hate crime based on gender between March 2015 and 2018, and 57,000 of those were targeted at women. This police policy started in Nottinghamshire, under the leadership of Sue Fish, and it showed a clear difference. I hope all of us in this House will pay tribute to Sue Fish and the tremendous work she has done in recognising the benefits to policing of taking this approach.
In that same time period, Nottinghamshire Police received 269 reports of misogyny, 125 of which were classed as hate crime and 144 were classed as non-crime incidents. Of the 265 misogyny hate crime victims, 243 were female. The same pattern emerges in Avon and Somerset, where just over 90% of the victims were female, but men did also come forward, so we know that men will be able to use this legislation.
My point in raising this is not to say that it somehow does not matter that young men might experience sex-based harassment; it is to recognise that at the moment in our society it is women who are paying the price for our failure to understand how misogyny has driven crime against them and to recognise that in law. What the law will do is correct that imbalance. It will bring us the opportunity not just to record that data, but finally to acknowledge it in the courts. In doing so, we stand up for all those young men who do not want to see this behaviour, who do recognise that it is abuse and harassment, and who do recognise that their sisters, their mothers, their aunts, their cousins and their friends at school deserve the same freedoms to go about their daily business as they do. This Bill, and the concept of recognising, as we do with other protected characteristics, that there are those out there who perpetrate crimes because of their hatred and anger towards somebody because of their sex or their presumed sex, is about equality of emancipation.
I say to the hon. Member for Christchurch, who I will know will be as deeply concerned as I was by the reports of sexual harassment among his own police force in Dorset, that one reason why many of us campaigned for this legislation and this recognition was the evidence from police forces about just how transformative it is. Let us be very clear: we are not talking about new forms of crime. We are talking about changing a culture in which women coming forward to report crime have been told, “Well, that’s just life. We couldn’t really find this person.” Not everybody who follows a woman down a road shouting abuse, suggesting that they might want to touch them in various sorts of ways and thinking that somehow that is an appropriate way to introduce themselves to somebody, becomes a rapist or a sexual abuser. But many of those who are rapists and sexual abusers start with that sort of behaviour. The kind of data the Bill will allow us to gather helps us to detect and prevent crimes. It helps us to change the culture within policing. In this week of all weeks, we know how important that will be for the safety of everybody in our constituencies.
I share with the hon. Member for Christchurch deep concern about the role models our young men have. I look on in horror at the material Andrew Tate promoted. I look on in horror at the things that can be found online that we know our young men are consuming. But I have great faith in the young men of this country. They do not need to be cosseted or nannied. They need us to stand up for their ability to be good allies, good brothers, good fathers, good friends and good work colleagues who are not likely to behave in those ways. Those who do behave in the ways we are discussing need to feel the force of the law. The law needs to be on the side of the victims, by recognising that behaviour in the way that we do other forms of hate crime.
By passing the Bill, we are sending a powerful message to our young men that they deserve better than the caricature of “boys will be boys” and the idea that they somehow cannot help themselves. We know they can. We know it is as much about our young men and the message we send them as it is our young women and their freedoms we are fighting for in this legislation. I welcome the fact that there has been cross-party work on the Bill. I pay tribute to Citizens UK, Our Streets Now and the Fawcett Society for the work they have done to make the argument that we should not minimise harassment in public. We should recognise it, treat it equally and prosecute those who behave in those ways.
I suspect that across the House there is a common agreement about how much this debate is changing. We are all of a certain age. We remember things that were on television when we were younger that we now know are not acceptable. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) is shaking his head. I am sure afterwards we can compare notes on just how awful our ’90s fashion was. We remember things that were on television, and cultural ideas about race and ethnicity, that we would now recognise are inappropriate, and indeed that created a culture in which racial hatred and abuse was encouraged. We hope, in time, that working against targeting people on the basis of their sex or presumed sex will have the same effect: that we can challenge myths, challenge expectations and challenge behaviour. But we cannot do that if the law is not on the side of women who have not come forward to date—the 80% of women who experience street-based harassment but do not report it. The Bill will change that. It will also support young men, and it will support our society to be a better version of itself.
I hope Members will support the Bill. This is the start of a process. I hope the Minister will talk about the training that will be given to the police and the CPS to ensure that the legislation is effective. But let us have no more minimisation, no more shaking our heads and saying, “It’s just the way of the world.” Let us have no more teaching young women to be frightened, to go on self-defence courses, to travel with their friends and to carry those keys, any more than we say to young men, “Well, try not to do it again.” Let us change that culture. Let us change the law. Let us make this a society where everybody is just free to live their lives in peace. I will wager, left or right, that is an ambition we can all get behind.
Metropolitan Police: Casey Review
Stella Creasy Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Suella Braverman
Baroness Casey is clear that the failings in relationships with communities are serious. That is why it is paramount that public trust in the Met is restored. I am going to continue to hold the Met commissioner to account, as well as the Mayor of London, because he has an important role to play here. But it is clear that we need to ensure that the Met has the resources it needs, which is why I am pleased that it now has the record number of police officers in its history on the frontline, working to keep Londoners safe. It has also made significant progress already in achieving some of the stated goals in its turnaround plan.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Recognising that the Met has been decreed to be institutionally misogynistic, homophobic and racist is not just about a label; it is about the lived experience of the communities that many of us have served and worked in for generations, and the message we had been trying to get across to the Home Secretary and her predecessors, as well as the Met leadership, for many years. All of us have a role to play in restoring confidence for our communities, but the Home Secretary will know that as of today there are still more than 100 serving officers in the Met being investigated for sexual misconduct and domestic violence. She could do something about that today. Let us be clear: if she wants to bring forward emergency legislation to deal with the issues stopping those officers being dismissed, she will have our support. Will she do it?
Suella Braverman
I am very proud that a Conservative Government brought in landmark legislation—the Domestic Abuse Act 2021—that, for the first time, increased the powers relating to and the status and seriousness of domestic abuse. We have announced our intention to bring in legislation at the earliest opportunity to ensure that offenders convicted of coercive and controlling behaviour are automatically managed in the same way as violent offenders. We have also run an important measure and are consulting on a lot of investment to support victims of domestic abuse, and I am very proud of this Government’s track record on empowering the police to better support victims of domestic abuse.
Public Order Bill
Stella Creasy ExcerptsTuesday 7th March 2023
(1 year, 9 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)
Danny Kruger
The behaviour that will not be taken as harassment is private prayer. Other actions that may be taken—obstructing a person walking down the street was what my hon. Friend suggested earlier—will be in scope. What should not be in scope is a person thinking something in their head. That is the only defence on which we are trying to insist, and I invite Members to consider whether they want to pass a law that will ban people from thinking something. Other forms of harassment or obstruction will be in scope of the law. So I do not think the intention is to stop people praying—I do not think that is what the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton, the Government or indeed any of us want to do. We need to send a clear signal of the intention of Parliament through this amendment, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) for tabling it. I ask Members to consider that if they vote against it, they are voting to ban private prayer. Of course it is a special case and we are talking about tiny zones, and of course we can all sympathise with the intention of the clause, but the point is the principle of this—
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
When we legislate, being specific matters. So let us be clear: the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton South is not about private prayer, but about “silent prayer”. Silent prayer can be done in somebody’s face, can it not, whether or not what the person praying is thinking is private in their head? That shows the challenge here. This is not actually about prayer; it is about where it is taking place. So will the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, that he has no problem with recognising that somebody praying in another person’s face, silent or not, is unwelcome?
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I rise to speak to Lords amendment 5 and the amendments to it put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer).
Buffer zones are basically public spaces protection orders, extending a distance of 150 m. PSPOs, as they are called, are generally used for antisocial behaviour. We have three in Doncaster, apparently, and I have personally applied for one in Conisbrough in my constituency. We have a set of seating in the middle of town where we have people under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and beggars, and they make a nuisance of themselves with antisocial behaviour. They are killing the town centre. I have been refused a PSPO there, but I will continue, because I think it is the right thing to do.
Lords amendment 5 will put a mandatory buffer zone, a PSPO, around every single clinic in the country. Regardless of what we think about that, I want to tell people in this House and in my constituency what that will look like. The drunks and the people under the influence of drugs in Conisbrough are going to continue to be able to make a nuisance of themselves, damage the local economy and scare old and young people who want to go to the shops; yet a lady or a gentleman who has a real strong faith and believes they can help the people coming in to a clinic is not going to be able to do that.
The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) talked about people praying and standing in front of people, and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) asked why they have to do it there. Well, if that is the worst day of a woman’s life, and I accept that it probably is one of the worst days of a woman’s life, if she saw somebody there who was praying respectfully, who was there to help, and she knew they were there, she could ignore that lady or gentleman who was praying and just walk in—but, if it was the worst day of her life, she might want somebody just to turn to for that second. Also, if somebody is being coerced into going into one of those places to have a forced abortion, that lady or gentleman could be somebody who is there to help.
I agree with everybody else in this House that shouting, screaming and holding up placards is an awful thing to do and should not happen, but silent prayer and consensual conversations should not be banned. The papers will get hold of this in a year’s time: we are the party of law and order, but we will be arresting people for prayer and for conversations, while letting the people who are harassing the public in our towns and our shops continue to do so.
I ask all Conservative Members in this House to think about amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5, which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South has put forward. It simply asks for people to be allowed to pray and to have those consensual conversations. Amendment (b) provides that, before we put this law in place, we carry out a review on it. That is what I am asking for.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I have immense respect for many people who have spoken in the debate. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) is no longer in his place. He and I might be in different political parties, but on issues of civil liberties, we often find common cause. I am not sure that my 15-year-old self would have thought that possible, but it is certainly true—for example, we are working, as Back-Bench Members of Parliament, to raise concerns about the restrictions on parliamentary sovereignty in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.
I have been very struck by the debate, which I believe crosses party political lines. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who I knew as the hon. Member for Colchester back when I was that 15-year-old who could not conceive of points on which I might find common ground with Government Members. But there are such points, and this—speaking up for freedoms—is one.
I am very struck that the concept of freedom that has been articulated in the Chamber so far is a myopic one. That myopic freedom comes from a blind spot that I believe most of the Members in this Chamber must recognise when talking about access to abortion, which is exactly what we are talking about. By definition of who they are, they will never have been in the position of the women for whom those buffer zones make a difference, so their experience of the human rights at stake in the legislation, and of the issues that we face, is inevitably tempered by their own understanding, in which they focus on the idea that this is purely an issue of freedom of speech and fail to recognise that other, much-cherished right in this country: the right to privacy. My remarks will be very much about that and about how we cannot be a free society if women, just as much as men, are not able to exercise those rights equally.
I am very taken by the fact that it is International Women’s Day tomorrow. I have to say that I have become increasingly cynical about that day. It deflates me. We spend a year talking about how we are going to celebrate women, but precious little time working on advancing their rights. Well, I see Lords amendment 5 and opposition to amendment (a) as being about advancing women’s rights and doing what the suffragettes told us to do: “Deeds, not words”. Why do I see that? I see that because I think we must start by clarifying some of the myths that have been presented to the Chamber.
I listened respectfully to the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) because this is the time and place for him to exercise that most important democratic right of freedom of speech. I have listened to many speakers talk about how we are somehow criminalising prayer. Let us be very clear for the avoidance of doubt: no prayer is being criminalised. Nothing in the Bill will do that, except, perhaps, for a gardener who is carrying a spade because they are praying that their carrots or green-sprouting broccoli will grow but who is stopped by the police—as clause 2 will allow—who argue that the gardener’s intent in carrying the spade is to dig a tunnel. The gardener’s prayer for the vegetables is secondary when they explain to the police why they were carrying a spade.
Let us be very clear: nothing in Lords amendment 5 criminalises prayer. It says what most people would recognise: that there is a time and a place for everything and a balance in those rights—in the freedom of speech to tell a woman that you do not think she has a right to make a choice over her own body, and her right to privacy. When she has made her choice, she should not be impeded.
Let us be honest about this: the people praying outside abortion clinics are not finding the right time and place for it. That is not just what I think; it is what the vast majority of the British public think because they recognise that when a woman has made that choice, she should not face someone trying to change her mind right up to the wire. She should be respected for her choice.
Stella Creasy
I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will intervene with some rhetorical flourish about the purpose of freedom in this place. What about the freedom of a woman to make her choice in peace? That is what the Lords amendment does. I will happily give way because I am sure that he wants to come in on that point.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Lady has provoked me to intervene and to be rhetorical as well, but I simply say this to her. She suggests that someone could be impeded by silence. Given that that is entirely irrational, will she answer this question: does she support the arrest and charging of a woman, as has happened? Does she endorse that, and does she want to see more of it?
Stella Creasy
It is an irony to me that Members of the party that once claimed to be the party of law and order are trying to argue against the law and order that a PSPO establishes.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me be clear that I am not arguing for the criminalisation of silence. My argument is about the location. The right hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous if he does not recognise the effect of somebody who disagrees so passionately with a woman’s right to privacy in making that choice standing there while she does it. He talked about some of the literary greats, so let us talk about Margaret Atwood and “Under His Eye.” That is what these people praying represent by being there at that most tender moment for a woman making that choice. It is their physical presence, not their praying, that is the issue.
If we respect people having different opinions on abortion when it comes to free speech, we also have respect that when someone has made that choice, they should not be repeatedly challenged for it. The Members who want to challenge those women by praying outside and supporting others who do so have no idea why those women are attending the clinics; they have no idea of the histories and stories. They can only listen to the countless testimonies that the women attending the clinics do find this harassing. That is why so many have called for the PSPOs. They do find it intimidating. That is not the right time and place.
In tabling the amendment, the hon. Member for Northampton South is attempting to complicate something that is very simple. I pay tribute to Baroness Sugg for tidying up our original amendment and clarifying where the 150-metre zone will be. In a very small zone around an abortion clinic, that is not the right time and place. People can pray—of course they can. Although I might disagree with the hon. Gentleman on whether that is still intimidating, I will defend to the hilt people’s right to pray. What I will not do is place that ahead of a woman’s right to privacy and say that a woman who has made the decision to have an abortion must continue to face these people, because somehow it is about their freedom of speech unencumbered.
We need to be honest and recognise that there will never be a point at which the people praying agree with the choice that a woman has made, so there is never going to be a point at which their prayers are welcome. There is never going to be a point at which those prayers are not designed to intimidate or to destabilise a very difficult decision. Look at the widespread evidence that shows that the people conducting these prayer marathons outside our abortion clinics are not acting simply to help women, and that they are not well intentioned. I think we can all make our own decision on what is well intentioned. The hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) says it is not offensive, but I disagree. I think that when a woman has made a choice, to have someone try continually to undermine that choice is offensive. We both have a right in this place to make our argument. Where we do not have a right to make that argument is right outside an abortion clinic with a woman who just needs her right to privacy to be upheld.
The hon. Member for Northampton South talked about consensual contact, but that is very unclear. What if a protester walks up to a woman and asks her the time, and she tells them? Does that mean she has engaged in conversation with them, which will allow them to start talking to her about their views on abortion? What if they ask for directions? Will that undermine the provision? The people protesting outside clinics, especially the “40 Days for Life” people, boast about how their presence reduces the number of women having abortions. They say it makes the no-show rate for abortion appointments as high as 75%. This is not benign behaviour. They also claim that those of us who support a woman’s right to choose are “demonic”, and increasingly they suggest we are “satanic” in our support for a woman’s right to privacy. Let us be clear: amendment (a) would not make an abortion clinic buffer zone clearer; it would sabotage a buffer zone by introducing uncertainty about behaviour and about the simple concept of there being a right time and place.
I am conscious of the time available, so I just want to put on the record my gratitude not only to Baroness Sugg, but to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for all her work, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, and organisations like Sister Supporter. They have stood up for the silent majority—the people who think it is not right to hassle a woman when she is making these choices. That is ultimately what we are here to say. When the vast majority of the public support buffer zones, and when those of us who will be in this position cannot speak freely, as a Scottish colleague raised, then we have a challenge in this place. Freedom of speech is not freedom of speech if 50% are living in fear of what might happen next. Margaret Atwood taught us that. She said that men are worried that women will laugh at them, and women are worried that men might kill them. Do not kill a woman’s right to her freedom. Do not kill a woman’s right to privacy. Let us not sabotage at the last minute abortion buffer zones by supporting amendment (a). We should support Lords amendment 5 and let everybody else move on with their life.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is worth looking at what amendment (a) states. It states:
“No offence is committed under subsection (1) by a person engaged in consensual communication or in silent prayer”.
For the avoidance of doubt, amendment (a) goes on to say that nothing in it should allow people to be harassed or their decision to be changed, such as kneeling down and praying right in front of somebody’s face, or blocking the pavement, or indulging in any kind of harassing.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
Thank you for selecting the amendments to Lords amendment 5, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would first like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) for bringing his amendments forward. He has put his finger on a couple of important principles about how we do law in this country and how we legislate in this House.
I should start by saying that this debate is absolutely not about abortion. My hon. Friend’s amendments also do not change the legislation regarding buffer zones. As has been said, that debate has happened in this House; they are in place. In fact, the powers providing for buffer zones around abortion clinics already exist. That point was made very well, I may say, by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). She is not in her place, but she highlighted how, where buffer zones have been challenged, their presence has been upheld and people protesting within them have been moved on. They are both legal and, it would appear from her description, effective for their purpose.
We therefore have not only laws that provide for buffer zones around abortion clinics but some evidence of what those mean in practice. We have the evidence that there are laws that allow for people to be moved on. However, we also have something rather more disturbing: evidence of the way that law is being interpreted.
I would like to make two points about the law and how we approach it. As a Member coming to this House tasked with understanding the issues that we debate—a wide range of issues on all sorts of things—one of the first questions I ask myself, and often one of the first questions asked of me, is, “What evidence is there of the need for this?” I think that that question of necessity and proportionality is an important one, particularly in relation to amendment (b) to Lords amendment 5 tabled by my hon. Friend, which seeks a pause in the legislation until we have established such a need.
Certainly, before any kind of national provision is introduced, it is reasonable to ask, “What is the necessity, and is this proportional?” In 2018, it was established that that necessity was not there, so I have to ask myself how that has changed and why the measure is felt to be necessary now. Is there a material difference? I must confess that I am struggling to understand the objection to providing or securing that evidence to have the confidence that we are acting proportionally and out of necessity.
My second point on my hon. Friend’s amendments is about, effectively, the carve-out or provision for silent prayer. There is no support in this place, nor has there been throughout the passage of the Bill, for any intimidation or harassment of women seeking the services of an abortion clinic. That is an important point, because that is not what the amendments seek to achieve and we already have laws to deal with that.
We have evidence of an arrest that took place for the act of silent prayer. Amendment (a) seeks to make it clear that that is an inappropriate interpretation of our laws.
Stella Creasy
That seems to be the nub of the challenge. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although he does not feel that silent prayer would intimidate him, plenty of users of the service feel that it is intimidating, so it is right that it is in scope?
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
I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have voted in this House and the other place for the safe access zones. As someone who prays, I understand why we need to introduce that legislation. However, the amendment mentions not just silent prayer but “consensual communication”. How on earth do we define consensual communication? There is no definition.
Stella Creasy
We must be clear that nobody is banning praying. We are saying that there is a time and a place to do it appropriately, which balances with people’s human rights. There has been some concern that, somehow, the buffer zones will take up police resources. Does my hon. Friend agree that, actually, amending the buffer zone legislation—as the amendment intends—would mean that more police resource would be needed, because it would become so unclear what was and what was not harassment, even when women repeatedly say that praying in their face is not acceptable?
Sarah Jones
I completely agree. Having talked to the police for nearly three years in this role, I know that they want clarity. The amendment provides not clarity but unbelievable confusion, whereas a 150-metre zone provides clarity, and that is what the police want.
The Bill remains an affront to our rights. The Government’s own impact assessment shows that it will not have much effect. It is our job as parliamentarians to come up with laws that solve problems and really work. The Bill does not do that, so the Opposition will vote against the Government tonight. We agree with the Lords, and I urge every Member to look to their conscience and do the same.
Chris Philp
My right hon. Friend is putting me on the spot a little bit. I would like to reiterate that the Government are neutral on this position. It is a free vote and there is no Government position, and in my capacity as a Government Minister I do not have a view. Obviously, as a Member of Parliament, I will be voting as an individual on this question. I do think, speaking personally, that women should be free to use these services without intimidation or harassment, which is why I voted for the amendment from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) when it was first tabled, but I do not think the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South undermines that, particularly given the words in proposed subsection (3B), which say that prayer
“shall not, without more, be taken to”
influence a person’s decision. So, personally, I will vote for that, but I emphasise again that the Government do not have a position and this is a free vote. We have heard some extremely thoughtful, well-considered, well-argued and sincerely held views on both sides, and Members will no doubt make up their own minds. up.
Stella Creasy
I respect the fact that the Minister has his own personal opinion. For the avoidance of doubt, can he confirm to the Chamber that this legislation, as amended in the Lords, is compliant with the European convention on human rights and that it does not criminalise praying but sets out boundaries for where it should occur?