Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]
Stella Creasy ExcerptsWednesday 17th June 2020
(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 View all Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 17 June 2020 - large font accessible version - (17 Jun 2020)
Sir Robert Neill
That is an interesting point and I would like to see what the Government can come up to deal with that, but I am not convinced that it needs to be in the Bill. I do, though, think that the Government need to look at it, not least because under the existing legislation that is retained there is, very properly, the ability to take conduct into account when dealing with financial matters. To me, that is where conduct ought to be relevant, rather than in proving the fact of an irretrievable breakdown. That is the way I would look at it.
I know that the Minister is particularly alert to these matters, and I hope he will want to think about how we can have greater access to early legal advice for people. Legal aid may be one route for that, but there may be other means that we can use to supplement it. One of the things that was said when we withdrew legal aid from family cases was that many more will go to mediation; that never happened, and the reality is that that is because lawyers are normally the gateway to mediation. Unless someone has some form of legal assistance to go to a lawyer in the first place, they are not going to end up moving into mediation, which is where we want people to be. That is where I am in agreement with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), but I hope that there is another means of achieving what he is looking for in a proportionate way.
I hope I have set out why I think Members will resist the amendments—not because they are not serious issues, nor because every one of us does not want to try get the Bill into the best possible condition, but because they would muddy the waters of the Bill and, in fact, would undermine it in a number of important respects by adding back in much of the confrontational process, and they would cause delay when delay is many people’s biggest concern. In particular, some of the technicalities of the amendments would actually strengthen the arm of the spouse who wants to exert influence on the petitioner either not to proceed with the divorce or, even worse, to settle for an unsatisfactory financial arrangement or an unsatisfactory arrangement for the children.
I do not see how, whatever their intention, amendments that have the practical result of strengthening the hand of the party who is putting pressure on someone at a time like that are in the public interest. For those reasons, I hope very much that the House will not accept the amendments but will take on board some of the legitimate points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and by the shadow Minister, which I think would chime with many people throughout the House, about how best we give people support at such a difficult period in anyone’s life.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
First, I associate myself with the comments from my colleague and good friend on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who gave us a clear outline of where the Labour party and the Opposition are on the amendments that have been tabled.
I rise to speak in particular to new clause 9 and to ask the Ministers to consider the financial status of children. I also associate myself with the comments from Members from all parties about the importance of supporting people with marriage, because it is obviously an issue for people to access support.
New clause 9 speaks to the conversation that we appear to want to have as a House. We should talk about marriage, and we should talk about how marriage and divorce are seen in public policy making, because there are ramifications, and there are ramifications that go far beyond the straightforward question of whether and how people can get married.
I wish to start with a wonderful quote that struck me very strongly:
“People stay married because they want to, not because the doors are locked.”
Those words were said by a gentleman who had a 50-year marriage: the great actor Paul Newman. Many of us are aware of Paul Newman’s marriage to Joanne Newman, which was celebrated throughout Hollywood—perhaps an area to which the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) would not look for marriage guidance, and I probably agree with her about that. Nevertheless, when we think about our role as parliamentarians in law, it is worth reflecting that even Paul Newman was married to somebody else when he met Joanne Newman and had three children.
The reality is that sometimes relationships do not work out, and sometimes people choose not to use marriage as a way of cementing their relationship. In the 21st century, it is right that, when we look at legislating on marriage and divorce, we ask ourselves what the consequences of any changes we might make will be for people’s real lives. It is right that we never lose sight of what really matters here, which is the people we represent and their families and day-to-day lives, and what the consequences would be. Indeed, it was Nietzsche who said that it was
“not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages.”
An environment is created when we say that we are either standing up for or detracting from marriage, because forcing people to stay unhappy or, as some are suggesting with this Bill, making divorce easier and therefore traducing the concept of marriage, misses out something fundamental about this legislation and about how we treat marriage within the legislative process. That is where new clause 9 is coming from.
New clause 9 seeks to take up the test that the hon. Member for Congleton set out in her amendments. She suggested that people will marry less and cohabit more and that somehow, therefore, we need to act against that. My point in tabling this new clause, with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North, who feels strongly about this too, is that we can lose sight of what really matters here and, in particular, lose sight of the consequences for children. I would wager that the hon. Member for Congleton and I may have differences of opinion on many things, but we would agree that children should matter and that we should never legislate in this place without thinking through the consequences for children.
The challenge here, and the reason why I tabled new clause 9, is that the way in which marriage it is portrayed in our legislative process, in particular how it is explicitly referenced when it comes to benefits, has consequences. It has very real consequences for the destitution of children. I agree with the hon. Member for Congleton that marriage breakdown is hard on children, but imagine a child who loses a parent and how awful that must be for that child. The trouble here is the way in which we think about marriage has consequences for children who are already facing the trauma of having lost a parent.
I hope that new clause 9 is actually a relatively straightforward piece of work, because there is a hangover from the Beveridge report, which sought to support widows, particularly widowed women who lost their husbands and, therefore, were having to look after children after losing the family income. The challenge for this piece of legislation, because I know Dame Rosie would say, “Well, this is a separate issue,” is that when we change the way in which we talk about marriage—or when we change the way in which we talk about divorce, because this will affect the children of divorced parents, too—the knock-on consequences may have severe financial effects for children. If we do not give them a voice in this process, we miss a trick. New clause 9 asks us to do precisely that.
Although the hon. Member for Congleton and I may have different views on marriage, we would find common cause in saying, “Well, actually, we should look and see whether this is going to affect that group of children,” because right now we know that the way the law is cast does affect those children. It affects thousands of people in this country who are already facing the trauma of losing a family member, whether through terminal illness or through sudden death, and who suddenly find that they are not entitled to support because of the marital status of their parents,
The widows legislation was in the Beveridge report, and it was updated in 2001 to take in fathers—some hon. Members will be pleased to hear that, and I would agree that we should not discriminate between fathers and mothers. Having worked on this issue for a number of years, with some fantastic organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group, the Grieving Parents Support Network, and Widowed & Young, I have heard some horrific stories about families and the impact of the changes upon them.
Crucially, this is based on national insurance contributions. That is why when we change access to marriage or change the rules around divorce, it has a knock-on effect on this particular piece of welfare policy. There are few other areas of policy that I can see that have such an explicit connection to marriage and divorce. The benefit is specifically not available—this is written into law—to partners who were not married or who were divorced. In earlier incarnations, it was also not eligible to parents whose partner was in prison— I am not quite sure why that was—or if the parent marries or cohabits. It was changed again in 2017 to the bereavement support allowance, and it was altered to shorten the amount of time that a family might be eligible to it, not to recognise the families who may miss out.
However, those are the very families about which I am sure the hon. Member for Congleton would say, “Well, actually, they should be getting married, and what we should be doing is having legislation that encourages and promotes marriage.” The challenge that I have here is that unless we recognise that people may choose for their own private reasons not to marry or may be in the process of getting married, we hit those families when we change the law on marriage and divorce. We are talking about a not inconsequential sum of money. Over the course of 18 months it adds up to £10,000, so we can see immediately that for families who lose a parent and a breadwinner, whether through terminal illness, which might have already caused problems for their finances, or through sudden death, the loss of £10,000 on top of the loss of a partner is a huge cataclysmic shock to them and their family. The reality is that in modern Britain one in five parents are raising children who cannot claim this benefit if their partner dies. That is about 2,000 families a year, which is about 3,500 children in total.
Some 49% of cohabiting couples believe that being in a cohabiting relationship gives them legal rights, which obviously is incorrect. The Bill will reinforce some of those challenges. Crucially, that number rises if they have children: 55% of cohabiting couples believe erroneously that, were the worst happen, they would still have the same right as if they had been married to that support which they have, after all, paid for with their national insurance contributions. I think that is why the Government have lost several court cases on this issue, yet we have not seen any progress being made. I believe we have not seen any progress being made because of the idea, to which the Bill speaks, that somehow we must cement marriage to the exclusion of all other concerns within our public policy-making process.
In August 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that denying the widowed parent’s allowance to unmarried parents was incompatible with human rights legislation. In February this year, the High Court ruled that denying the new bereavement support allowance to bereaved parents was also incompatible. Every day that we delay resolving this situation, recognising that how we talk about and legislate on marriage has practical implications for families who face the trauma of losing a parent, there are more children in this position. Indeed, in the current circumstances where people cannot have marriages unless in extreme circumstances—it is only recently that we have seen that—we face the vision of families losing someone to this awful virus and then discovering that they are in a financial crisis moment because they cannot get the support that they reasonably thought they were entitled to, because their family member had paid their national insurance contribution.
Other countries, which have strong feelings and strong legislation on marriage and divorce, have treated the matter differently. Other member states of the Council of Europe and Canada either pay a survivor’s pension direct to the partner or pay what is called an orphan’s pension to the child. They explicitly say, “However strongly we may feel that we want to promote marriage and however strongly we may feel that divorce in itself should not be something that the state is propagating, we do not punish the child for the decisions of the parent. We do not push the child into financial destitution. Whenever we change the law on marriage or divorce, we seek to put the child at the heart of the decisions we make.” If the Minister wishes, he can read the stories of women like Laura Rudd or Joanna Niemeyer from my community in my constituency, or the examples raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North, about the human consequences of talking about marriage and divorce to the exclusion of all concerned, for children who may have to deal with the aftermath.
If my new clause is about anything, it is about understanding the true effect of everything that we are doing. The Minister may say to me, “Well, it would not just cover bereavement support payments.” That is true. We would probably have to look at the married couple’s allowance, which is our previous attempt to promote, encourage and sustain the concept of marriage. I am very mindful that that is not claimed by the vast majority of people who are entitled to it. This is a small change to protect bereaved families. We are not talking about hundreds of thousands of people: a few thousand people every year could be covered by it. If only 1.7 million of the 4.2 million families who are entitled to the married couple’s allowance claim it—one question the review could consider is whether the ways in which the Minister is changing access to marriage and divorce might affect that—then the £20 million we estimate it would cost to put this right could come from that budget and we would not be asking little children who face the loss of a parent to deal with a double financial blow because their parents were not married. After all, when their parents are alive we recognise their relationship in the tax credit system. It is a hangover from a previous era in how we dealt with benefits and marriage. It is right, when we are looking at legislation on marriage, to ask whether there will be a further consequence.
I ask the Minister—I recognise that he may say the Bill is not the right place for this debate—not to forget those children in this debate.
Will he go to the Department for Work and Pensions and say, “It’s been two years since the courts said that this was a human rights breach. That’s thousands more children who have been left out and left in destitution, who have missed out on that money, which their families need at a crucial, vulnerable time”? Whether their parents would choose not to get married because the law is changed to make it easier to get divorced, or whether that would not make any difference, they deserve to be heard in this place, they deserve an answer, and they deserve our support. It is never right to tell a child that the sins of the father should be prosecuted on them, and yet by default the way we treat marriage in public policy will do that to these children.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]
Stella Creasy ExcerptsMonday 8th June 2020
(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 View all Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2-R-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (16 Mar 2020)
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to join my colleagues on the Front Bench in supporting the Bill, which recognises the tragedy that happens when a relationship breaks down. The last thing anybody wants is for the state to be a barrier to people being able to move forward from that. I also rise on behalf of a small number of young people—indeed, Ministers could be advocates for them—who are those affected by their parents’ status of divorce, and the way that we see marriage within broader public policy making. We do not often get legislation on marriage, so I hope the Minister will forgive me for taking the opportunity to make this plea when discussing the Bill. He talked about sending signals. I think we are quick to jump to send signals to the parents and we must not, at the expense of the children, damage the children’s lives.
I am talking about, in particular, the group of children who may not only face their parents becoming divorced but then might also lose a parent—and, in particular, their entitlement to support under our current system through the bereavement support system. There are 2,000 families every single year who face the horror of losing a parent, whether through a terminal illness or a sudden death. Indeed, in our current circumstances, there may be families right now who are facing this situation through the horror of the virus that has taken over this country. Those families discover that because of their status under our current legislation, they are not entitled to support, so the children face destitution.
Many of us will have seen these families in our constituencies, given the 3.5 million people who choose to have children and decide not to get married. I know that marriage is something people feel very strongly about in this debate. There are also families where, when the parent gets divorced, those same entitlements are lost to the child. We are unusual as a country in attaching the entitlement to support to the parent rather than the child. When we talk tonight about the financial situation that divorce might create and how we might support families, I ask Ministers please not to forget these children and not to forget the opportunity that we might have through this Bill to learn from other countries which have what they call orphans’ pensions.
Five families every single day find, when a family member dies, that their child cannot seek to benefit from the entitlements built up through the state pension. It is the same for children of divorced parents if a divorced parent dies; the child loses that entitlement. I think of families such as the family of Laura Rudd. She was not married to her partner, who went out for a jog and did not come home, and her son Noah has been left destitute as a result. Children in my constituency also face that experience.
It would be very easy simply to reflect that when we want to support marriage we do that with the parents—with the consenting adults—but the way in which our financial system works serves to penalise children for the choices that their parents may make. I know from listening to this debate that that is not the intention of Ministers, but it is the outcome of the way in which we see marriage, and thereby the laws around divorce.
Ministers talk about supporting families, so will the Secretary of State work on this with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions? Will he use the opportunity of legislation that looks at divorce, families and the entitlements that parents might have with their children and not miss the chance to right a historical wrong? Indeed, when he talks to his colleagues in the DWP, they will tell him of legal cases—human rights cases—that have recognised the discrimination as a result of bereavement support allowance against children of parents who are not married, or who have divorced. The Government have been asked to address this issue for over a year now, and yet we have not had a resolution to it. That is because of the way in which we construct marriage within our public policy making.
This Bill will help to support people in that terrible moment when they find that their relationship cannot continue any longer. That is a tragedy for all concerned. It is a tragedy whether people have spent many years together and decided not to marry, or have married and decided that their marriage should break down. But in all of this, we all have a concern for the children. It surely cannot be the intention of any decent Government to put into destitution children who suffer through no fault of their own the double tragedy of a parent dying and a relationship breaking up. I therefore ask Ministers: please do not miss this opportunity finally to do something about bereavement support allowance and to make sure that we support every child in every family so that no child is penalised for the choices of their parents.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Stella Creasy ExcerptsTuesday 28th April 2020
(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that you can hear me.
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) on her extraordinary maiden speech. It is difficult to make a maiden speech at the best of times. I think that her mum would have been extremely proud of her, and I join her in wishing her dad a happy birthday. Many Labour Members are extremely grateful for what she said about her predecessor.
This is a Bill that many of us have fought for, waited for and wanted for a long time. Before the covid-19 crisis, we had already seen the highest levels of domestic abuse in our society for the past five years, so we know that the pressure is as urgent as it is. I join my Front-Bench colleagues in calling for an emergency fund to tackle the issues created by covid-19 by providing a safe environment for everybody to stay at home in. I support the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) in relation to the Bill to ensure that we give women the rights they deserve.
In the short time available to me, I want to take up the Secretary of State’s challenge on how we can strengthen the Bill by setting out a number of areas in which I hope we, as a House, can make progress together. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) reminds us in a powerful speech every single year, when we get this wrong, we see the human cost.
First, we must see every victim in their own right—they are not a generic group of people. That is why we need to go further in protecting women who otherwise would find their immigration status a barrier to seeking help. It is also why we must recognise disabled women and ensure that our law works for them. We must look at the concept of what a personal relationship is. I look at the work that Stay Safe East has done on that; it makes a powerful case.
If we are to protect every woman and see her in her own right as a victim, we must also ensure that we protect every woman where she is a victim. I am very moved by the words of Claire Throssell, who talked about the tremendous strength of her sons, Jack and Paul, and the horrific experience they had in the family courts. As Claire has said:
“No parent should have to hold their children in their arms as they die knowing it’s at the hands of the other parent, someone who should love and cherish them.”
We need to go further in protecting people from unsafe contact, because we see in Claire’s case the damage that is done when that does not happen.
We need to push for the stalkers register that we were promised many years ago. There are too many women—Alice Ruggles, Jane Clough and many more—whom we have to honour, and Paladin is doing work in that area. We must also ensure that housing does not become a barrier to a victim of domestic abuse getting help. I stand with SafeLives and Barnardo’s in calling for an amendment to the Bill to ensure that there is a statutory duty on local authorities.
In my final minute, I want to flag the importance of us being a leader, not a follower, when it comes to tackling domestic abuse internationally. It is extremely concerning that although the UK, as a member of the Council of Europe, signed the Istanbul convention in 2014, we are one of the few countries that has not yet ratified it. As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) pointed out, that means that there are challenges in how we treat women from minority communities, particularly migrants.
Ratification of the convention is also about our recognition that this is a gendered crime. Through the Bill, I hope that we can make progress on something that the Law Commission is looking at: recognising the misogyny behind crimes against women, and looking at misogyny as a hate crime. In particular, I look at the evidence from Nottinghamshire, where treating violence as a misogynistic act has transformed the way in which the police and other services are able to deal with it.
I hope that Ministers look forward to debating not only how we protect migrant women and disabled women, but the need to call this out for what it is: a hatred of women. It is about not creating a new crime, but recognising the importance and value of identifying it as such within our criminal justice system. When we hear the words of victims such as Claire or the families of Jane Clough and Alice Ruggles, we know that we cannot afford to lose this precious legislative moment. We have fought for it for so long. All of us across the House want the Bill to be the best it can be, so I look forward to working with Ministers to make sure that it is.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Stella. I can reassure you that your speech was heard clearly and in its entirety in the Chamber.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Stella Creasy Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Buckland
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, the business managers will have heard him loud and clear. I am keen to ensure that the Bill maintains its focus on domestic abuse. I do not pretend that we can somehow hermetically seal the issue off from other aspects of criminal behaviour and abuse, such as stalking, but I think that the best place for stalking legislation would be in a discrete piece of work. I draw his attention to the work that we did in England and Wales. I was part of the all-party parliamentary group on stalking and harassment, which campaigned and worked at pace to get stalking criminalised in England and Wales. I will give him encouragement, but I really want to ensure that this Bill is focused.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I have just returned from the Council of Europe, where members across parties, especially in the Socialist Group, expressed horror that it has taken seven years and counting for the UK to ratify the Istanbul convention. One of the critical points in ratifying the convention is the treatment of women in Northern Ireland and the fact that they do not have the protections that the Secretary of State has just suggested should not be in the Bill. The Government gave a pledge and told the Council of Europe that the Bill was about ratifying the Istanbul convention, and there is a motion of recommendation about the convention in the UK right now at the Council of Europe. Can he give an assurance that he will not leave the women of Northern Ireland out of the Istanbul convention, let alone the migrant women in this country who also need us to put the legislation together?
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady makes an important point about the Istanbul convention, and of course we passed domestic legislation about that. I want to make sure that every aspect of the convention is underpinned in domestic law throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. I am simply saying, as a legislator and someone who wants to make sure that we get the Bill in the best possible position, that we need to make sure we get the issues in the right vehicle. If it is the will of the House that the Bill is the right vehicle, that will of course be respected, but I think I am entitled to make that point about what I regard as the real focus of the Bill. I speak as someone who has actively and enthusiastically supported the criminalisation of stalking— as has she—for many years.
Carolyn Harris
Without question, the victim is central and we need to look closely at that.
We also need to see changes in relation to migrant women and the economic abuse that they experience due to having no recourse to public funds—a situation that often leaves them in violent and dangerous relationships, as they simply cannot afford to leave. The Bill must change the legislation to ensure that all migrant victims are eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain irrespective of the visa that they are residing here on. The law must allow them to apply immediately for access to public funds under the destitute domestic violence concession and permit up to six months for their application for indefinite leave to remain to be submitted under the domestic violence rule.
Stella Creasy
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point. Is it not also worth putting on record that, if we wish to ratify the Istanbul convention, we have to make sure that this legislation covers the rights of migrant women, as well as the rights of women in Northern Ireland, and has a gendered definition of domestic violence? Without those, we will not be able to say that we have ratified and, after seven years, I know that the Council of Europe will want to know why we have not.
Carolyn Harris
That was a very powerful point from a well-known champion on such issues who has now taken the opportunity to put those sentiments on record.
Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill
Stella Creasy ExcerptsWednesday 5th September 2018
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 View all Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 5 September 2018 - (5 Sep 2018)
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out
“for a purpose mentioned in subsection (3))”.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 1, leave out paragraph (c).
Amendment 3, page 2, line 6, leave out subsection (3).
As drafted the Bill potentially does not outlaw “upskirting” in certain cases such as for purely financial motives; or where the motivation is “group bonding” where the identity of the victim is irrelevant. This amendment makes all “upskirting” an offence.
Amendment 5, page 2, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) It is an offence for a person (A) to disclose an image of another person (B) recorded during the commission of an offence under subsection (2) if the disclosure is made without B’s consent.
(3B) It is a defence for a person (A) charged with an offence under subsection (3A) to prove—
(a) that disclosure of the image was necessary for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime, or
(b) that A did not disclose the image with the intent of disclosing an image of another person’s genitals, buttocks or underwear.”
As the Bill is currently drafted it would be an offence to take an upskirting picture but not necessarily an offence for it to be distributed (existing “intimate image” legislation does not outlaw the distribution in all cases). This amendment makes it an offence to distribute non-consensual “upskirting” images.
Amendment 7, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(4A) Where a court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under this section, and either or both of the facts in subsection (4B) are true, the court—
(a) must treat any fact mentioned in subsection (4B) as an aggravating factor (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of an offence), and
(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.
(4B) The facts referred to in subsection (4A) are that—
(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim having (or being presumed to have) a particular sex characteristic, or
(b) the offence was motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards persons of who share a particular sex characteristic, based on them sharing that characteristic.
(4C) For the purposes of subsection (4B), “sex characteristic” means the protected characteristic of sex in section 11 of the Equality Act 2010.
(4D) The Secretary of State shall, within twelve months of Royal Assent being given to this Act, request that the Law Commission review the provisions of subsections (4A) to (4C).”
This amendment ensures that if the crime is motivated by misogyny then that will be considered by a court as an aggravating factor when considering the seriousness of the crime for the purposes of sentencing.
Amendment 4, page 2, line 27, leave out
“mentioned in section 67A(3)(a) (sexual gratification)” and insert “of obtaining sexual gratification”.
Amendment 6, page 2, line 29, leave out from “the” to end of line 40 and insert
“offender was aged 18 years or older at the time of the offence”.
This amendment makes the offence notifiable in all cases when the offence is committed by a person aged 18 or over and for sexual gratification.
Stella Creasy
I want to put on record my tremendous respect for the very hard work done by Gina Martin to get this legislation before Parliament and by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). It is a testament to the power of a good argument whose time has come. All these women are right that we should not wait around for this legislation, but we should make sure that it works.
I also want to put on record my support for the work that the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) has done, and for her amendments and the case she is making. I will be voting for the Bill and supporting it wholeheartedly, but I will also be supporting all efforts to improve it, because I do not believe that those two things are incompatible. We should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We should recognise that legislation with holes in it will inevitably return to us. It is in that spirit that I have tabled my new clause and amendment, which are about the context in which this crime takes place, and I am proud to see the support for them from across the House.
Let me be very clear that treating misogyny as something we should tackle is not about flirting. It is not about banter. It is not about telling all men that they are rapists. It is not even about new crimes. We cannot apply a hate crime tariff to something that is not already a hate crime. It is about something that has become so widespread that we treat it as a fact of life—but only for 51% of our population.
Across the UK, a huge majority—85%—of young women and nearly half of all women report experiencing sexual harassment in public places. Only one in 10 of them have ever reported receiving help after such incidents. Without recognising the role of misogyny in the day-to-day experiences of women in our society, our legal and criminal justice system masks the true extent of the hostility that exists against gender. This is not about criminalising wolf-whistling or flirting. It is about recognising existing crimes that are motivated by hostility towards somebody because of their gender, as well as recognising what they are—hate crimes.
Although women have protection in their workplaces under equality legislation, as soon as they step out of the door on to our streets, they are not protected. If somebody targets people on the basis of their faith or religion, they can receive a tougher sentence for their behaviour under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Somebody who repeatedly targets women in the same way faces no such comparable sanction.
I hope that we all agree that our young women deserve better. It is particularly our young women who are reporting this as part and parcel of everyday life. One thousand women aged 14 to 21 were asked by Plan International about their experiences in public settings, whether on transport, walking on the street, just going to school or even going to work, with 66% saying they experienced unwanted sexual attention or sexual or physical contact in a public place. Some 40% said that they experienced verbal harassment and 15% said they had been touched, groped or grabbed at least once a month.
What does that mean in practice? It means the experiences of my own constituents, whom I asked about this issue. One woman was followed down the road by a man in a car demanding that she get in. She was then told that he was pranking her when she complained and called a racist for refusing to go with him. A mother wrote to me about her young daughter. Only last week, somebody had come up to her in a tube station, put his face right up in hers and shouted, “Sexy bitch, ” very aggressively. She had been sitting on a bus as men played videos of men masturbating, showing the phones to her to make sure she had seen them. As the mother said:
“This is not about trying to chat someone up—it’s a power play, exerting control and making women feel frightened and unsafe in their own streets.”
Girls and women are nervous about retaliation and worried about what might happen if they fight back. Women say that it is not about whether they are attractive, because violence is never far behind if they reject these advances.
This is about what makes a hate crime. It is not pleasant and funny; it is a way of keeping women and girls feeling on edge all the time and unable to move freely in their own areas. As the mother said, her children walk around “heads down, headphones in”, tensely and purposely avoiding eye contact or hassle from men. That is harassment—it is legally harassment. The women have said no, yet these men still persist. All of us worry what a man who behaves like that might go on to do if his behaviour is not addressed.
It is really important for us to be very clear that we are not talking about all men. Most men in this country do not behave like that towards women, and would be horrified to see that kind of behaviour happening to their mothers, daughters, wives, sisters or friends. In proposing my amendments, I want to defend the reputation of the men of this country. This is not about their behaviour; it is about some men’s behaviour—enough men’s behaviour to make women’s lives difficult, and enough men’s behaviour to mean that women experience hatred.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I am listening with great care, as ever, to the case that the hon. Lady is making, and I have some sympathy with it. My problem—will she help me with this?—is that I will be really troubled if we see all this offending as offences of hate against women, because much of it is genuinely in the category of sexual offending, which is often a deeper problem that must absolutely be stopped, prosecuted and so on, and sometimes it is harassment. I do not support the hon. Lady’s amendments; I think that we need to know more about this. Although my own view is that this absolutely needs to go to the Law Commission, I do not care where it goes, but it needs proper and full exploration so that we get this right. I am sure that she is right that some of the behaviour is misogynistic, but not all of it is.
Stella Creasy
As ever, I agree with much of what the right hon. Lady says. I think we need to say that the bigger thing she is talking about is misogyny. There are men out there who are hostile towards women and act accordingly. As a result, 51% of our population experiences harassment and a particular type of crime. At the moment, we cannot name, recognise and differentiate it, and therefore say, as we do with racially or religiously targeted hatred, that there is a premium on it. That is what the amendments would achieve.
This is also about what drives police behaviour, because if something is a crime, the evidence about it of course needs to be gathered. I have to admit to my honest frustration, as the first female MP for Walthamstow, where a number of people have tried to report their experience. Let me give the Minister some examples of the things we are talking about—the responses the women I have mentioned got back when they reported these crimes. In particular, in response to the woman followed down the street by a man demanding that she get into his car and threatening her with his behaviour when she tried to say no, the police said that the
“behaviour is only threatening, abusive, or insulting if the person…intended it to be so, or if he was aware…that it was so. The comments about his believing it to be a prank and being blown out of proportion would make that difficult to achieve.”
Let us think about that for a moment: the experience of the victim of this behaviour—their fear, their terror—means nothing because the man just said, “I was kidding”. We would not allow that for any other form of crime, so why do we allow it when it comes to men who harass women?
Alex Chalk
As always, the hon. Lady makes a powerful point, but just because a defendant or suspect alleges that that was in their mind and therefore has a defence, it does not mean a tribunal of fact—magistrates or a jury—will believe it. Very often they say, “What a load of old nonsense. We’re going to convict you.” Does she agree?
Stella Creasy
I hesitate to say that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I said, but this was what the police said. Such a case will never get to a point at which a jury or somebody looks at the evidence base because we do not have a commitment to recording and recognising misogyny. Such a commitment would mean that the police would record and recognise it in the same way as racial or religious hatred. Before this case got to the test that the hon. Gentleman is setting, the police said that they would not investigate it further. The challenge facing women across this country is that we do not take this seriously: 66% of women have changed their behaviour to try to avoid street harassment as the police are not taking it seriously.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am sure that the hon. Lady shares my concern that many crimes with a gendered aspect have rates of reporting and of final prosecution that are so low. We need to look at all the reasons for that.
Stella Creasy
I completely agree. This is the point about changing the mindset. Let me reassure the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) that where police forces, particularly in Nottingham, have started to record misogyny as a hate crime—this is not a new idea—it is transforming the experience of women not just when it comes to street harassment, but when it comes to violence against women in total.
Stella Creasy
I will happily give way to a Nottingham MP and then to the right hon. Gentleman, but then I really must make some progress, because I am conscious that other Members want to speak.
Anna Soubry
I rise purely to put on record that that has been done by Nottinghamshire police. I think it is the first force to do so, and we believe that the evidence is showing that it is having exactly the right effect on the police, in that they are taking this seriously and seeing it as an offence.
Stella Creasy
I desperately apologise to the people of Nottinghamshire for forgetting the “Shire”—I am not a fan of “The Lord of the Rings”. I hope the right hon. Lady will forgive me.
Sir Mike Penning
As a former Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, I stress that just because the police were not willing to take the matter forward does not mean that an offence has not taken place. This will be driven forward by guidance to the police, particularly from the College of Policing, and by the evidence about what is happening in Nottinghamshire. The offence is there, whether or not we change the wording of the Bill today. Trying to force someone into a car is an offence, and the police should take it seriously.
Stella Creasy
I understand the point that my colleague is making, but women in this country have suffered from this chicken-and-egg syndrome for too long. The idea is that because the offence exists, somehow it will be taken seriously, but the bitter reality of women’s experience shows that that is not the case. New clause 1 is designed to amend the guidance that is given to the police in recognition of that fact. The existence of specific offences has driven change, as amendment 7 is designed to do. I do not disagree with my colleague, but unless we get the proposed measure in the legislation, the way in which the police deal with the problem will not change quickly enough to give the women of today the freedom to walk on the streets, as he does, without being frightened.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will know that one reason why hate crime legislation is so powerful is that the emphasis is on the victim and how they perceive the crime. If misogyny was a hate crime, the police response to the examples that my hon. Friend has given would automatically not be permissible. Power is shifted to the victim.
Stella Creasy
As ever, my hon. Friend is on the money about the importance of a victim-centred approach. We know from Nottingham—[Interruption.] I do apologise; I meant Nottinghamshire—sorry, Frodo. We know from those examples that recognition of the multiple kinds of intersectional hostility that women may face has been a powerfully positive experience, particularly for women from black and ethnic minority backgrounds.
Internationally, this is not a new idea. Spain, Croatia, Sweden, Estonia, Italy, Belgium and France all recognise gender and misogyny as a basis for hate crime. We are talking about replicating our current model for racial and religious hatred, and saying that we should be able to recognise similar hostility in the sentencing of particular crimes. We should be able to recognise the hate as it is.
There is already a framework that Ministers can use. The Crown Prosecution Service and the police already define cases involving hostility as
“any…offence that is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice.”
The CPS does not have a legal definition of hostility; it uses the everyday understanding of the word. We all understand and recognise misogyny when we talk about ill will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike. We seek to echo existing protections and to put the protections that we offer someone for their religious or ethnic background in a position of parity with those that we offer them for their sex background.
I accept that amendment 7 is not a perfect amendment because it covers only upskirting, but upskirting is a classic example of an offence that happens within the context of misogyny. It is motivated by misogyny.
Stella Creasy
I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman because I know he feels very strongly about this.
Alex Chalk
The hon. Lady is making a powerful point, but she has identified something that she is right to concede is a weakness. It would be very odd, would it not, if misogyny could be applied to the offence of upskirting but not to rape, sexual assault or revenge porn. Does she therefore agree that a solution might be to get the Law Commission to look at the matter in a more holistic way?
Stella Creasy
It is almost as though the hon. Gentleman read my mind—he is right. The data shows us that 15% of young girls say that they are being groped, and there might be somebody behind that and we want to record where it is happening. Clearly, this is not just about how people use mobile phones in the modern world. It is about the hatred towards women that exists among a small group of men in our society, and the damage that that is doing to our society as a whole.
I have said clearly that we would not press the amendments if we could have a meaningful and properly funded Law Commission review into all hate crime, including misogyny, looking at both existing and new legislation. I do not think that that is a lot to ask. I know that the Law Commission is open to looking at the matter and that it recognises the importance of new legislation. We required new legislation to extend such protections to disability and transgender identity.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
In the interim, while we wait for a wider review of the law on hate crime generally, would it be helpful for police guidance to reflect the points that the hon. Lady is quite rightly raising, in the way that it does on sexting, for example?
Stella Creasy
Absolutely. I would love it if all police forces, including the Metropolitan police—I know that the Mayor of London is looking into this issue—could learn from Nottinghamshire police and the other four forces that are acting, but I also recognise that the police are asking Parliament to offer guidance on these issues, and that is what we can do today. If we change the law and offer women new protections from hatred, we will send a clear message to women that they can report these crimes, and a clear message to the police that they should not only record them, but do something about them.
I am pleased that the Law Commission is open to reviewing this issue, and I am pleased to hear from those who work with people who deal with hate crime on a daily basis. The proposal in the new clause has the support of Refuge; the Southall Black Sisters; Stonewall; Citizens UK, which has been doing fantastic work campaigning on this issue in Nottinghamshire; the Fawcett Society; Tell MAMA; Dimensions, which works with people with disabilities; Solace Women’s Aid; and Respond, which works with children and adults with learning disabilities. There is a whole panoply of people who recognise that hate is holding our society back and that it is right that we make sure that that does not happen.
Right now, we say that if a woman is targeted in her workplace, we know who is wrong, but as soon as she steps outside, we do not know what happens. New clause 1 is about that gap in our legislation.
I know that some people—not just on Twitter—are going to ask about men. The “What about the men?”—the misandry point. The Law Commission review could look into all that, but let us be clear that it is not men who are trying to report this crime on a regular basis. It is not men who are experiencing this regularly. It is not men who are being targeted in this way. It is not men who we say are worthy of protection at work, but not if they dare to go out at night. Let us engage in all the whataboutery that we want to, but do not tell me that women’s experiences do not matter. When people argue against these proposals, they are saying that, on that basis, the existing protected characteristics are not that important—that there is a limit to how far they want equality to go.
I have had that in some of the comments I have received about this issue. A gentleman wrote to me today to say:
“Obviously this is a law to prevent perverts’ fantasies. Yet as a society why is it we have allowed women and even our daughters and granddaughters to dress even more suggestively than was the case generations ago that must be giving rise to fantasies…out there?”
Under your eye, Sir, if you have been watching. May you be blessed.
Another man wrote to me to say that I am abusing my position
“to push for Misandry to be juxtaposed with her Misogyny.”
and to
“target the bloke-hating females of the species”
because I am a
“a nasty feminist ‘I’m Offended’ snowflake whinger hell bent on emasculating male society.”
The vast majority of men in this Chamber and in our society do not want to be associated with that bile, but they do want to make sure that people are safe, and that is what this is really all about. It is not about flirting or banter. I have yet to meet a couple who have said that they met because he followed her down the street demanding that she get in the car with him. It is about how we make this a country where everybody is free.
I am really done with all the whataboutery and all the opposition to this. It is not really a lot to ask for, is it? We would like to be able to walk around this country free from fear. We would like those who target women in a hostile way to be held to account. We would like the harassment to stop.
I am fed up with being told that there have been private briefings saying that somehow this issue is too controversial—too difficult—and that we are going to delay legislation. This is 2018. This is not Gilead. It is not about all men, but it is about some men. There is only one person who can stop this legislation, and that is the gentleman sitting opposite—the Secretary of State—but I know that he does not want to do that. I know that he can hear a reasonable request to review all hate crime, and to look at new and existing legislation to get it right for the 21st century so that we can protect everyone from being targeted just for being who they are. I will tell him, though, that we will not keep waiting. We will not keep being frightened. We will not keep being hassled for going about our daily lives. Please, do not tell women to put up with this because you find it difficult. Let us get on and make 21st century laws to stop it.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) was right. In objecting, he has given Parliament the proper opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. If he had not objected, the Bill would have gone through on the nod and the amendments we are debating today would not have been possible. The failings of the private Members’ Bill procedures are not for discussion on Report. No one, least of all me, is denying the need to address swiftly the wrongdoing of upskirting, but that should not be at the expense of proper scrutiny. We have to wake up to the need to jettison antiquated, opaque procedures in this place, procedures that in this instance I believe have left a respected and longstanding hon. Member, my friend and fellow Wessex Member of Parliament, open to hostile attack for acting to ensure that this new law is subject to appropriate levels of scrutiny.
As we have just heard from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), the issues we are discussing today on upskirting are a part of far broader issues to do with image-based abuse and sexual harassment in public places. It is right that we address upskirting, but it is also right that we reject the piecemeal approach for dealing with these issues. The Women and Equalities Committee is looking at the issue of sexual harassment in public places. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) is in her place. We have taken copious amounts of evidence on this issue and we will be issuing a report in autumn dealing with many of the issues that the hon. Member for Walthamstow has raised today. The Government need a cohesive strategy in this area. I believe this piecemeal approach is not the right way forward. Indeed, if we had a cohesive strategy, we would not need this Bill.
In wanting to move so swiftly to change the law, the Government are right to use the existing Scottish legislation as its base. However, the Scottish Act was passed eight years ago, and in that time the Scottish Government have themselves recognised significant shortcomings in their own law and made changes, changes that are not reflected in the Bill before us today. The amendments tabled in my name and in the names of right hon. and hon. Members from across the Conservative party, the Liberal party, Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National party and Labour seek to rectify those shortcomings and tackle the emerging problems that we are seeing with the Scottish legislation: very, very low levels of prosecutions and convictions, with legislation that has now been in place for eight years.
Amendment 3 makes all upskirting a crime. At the moment, the Bill is very narrowly defined. There should never be an instance when it is acceptable to take a photo up anyone’s skirt without their consent. The issue should be the lack of consent, not the motivation of the perpetrator. The perpetrator’s intentions can be difficult for the police to prove. Is it to humiliate? Is it to alarm? Is it to distress the victim? They may never know or care who the victim is. The picture may be shared for a laugh, or taken and sold and then sold on again. How do the police track the buyers and sellers of these photographs? The Bill explicitly does not outlaw upskirting per se; it outlaws it in certain circumstances.
Stella Creasy
I feel the need to stand up for the members of the Committee, having been a member of it myself, and to reflect that the discussions we had in Committee about treating misogyny as a hate crime did not receive Front-Bench support. That made me, as a Back-Bench Member scrutinising the Bill, reflect on what more could be done to win that argument. It is not always a good thing to be told no.
Sir Christopher Chope
I have nothing but praise for the hon. Lady. Fortunately, the Opposition Whips, who are represented on the Selection Committee, obviously did not think it was necessary to allow the Bill to proceed without any amendment. It is worth putting on record that, during that Committee debate, the official Opposition spokesman said:
“The Opposition support the Bill completely, and will not propose any amendments.”––[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 2 July 2018; c. 17.]
At that stage, the Opposition were blindly supporting the Bill, rather than being prepared to examine exactly how it might be improved.
Lucy Frazer
I will continue for the moment. If I have time, I will happily take further interventions.
The reason the Government do not favour widening the scope of the purposes is that a blanket liability risks criminalising those whom we do not want to criminalise. The amendments could bring in serious unintended consequences and risk bringing too many people within the scope of criminal law. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke recognised, the amendments risk criminalising young children who are over the age of liability, which is 10, but who do not realise the impact of their actions and mean no harm when they carry out the act.
There is one further critical issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) mentioned. If all the purposes were removed by amendments 1 to 4, there would be no need for the prosecution to bring forward evidence of the perpetrator’s motivation of sexual gratification. That could mean that those who posed a threat to the public were not put on the sexual offenders register, because the issue had not been determined in court.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke highlighted the small number of prosecutions that have been brought, and highlighted the fact that we anticipate only a few more in the impact assessment. The reason for that, as paragraph 29 of the explanatory memorandum makes clear, is that there are already laws that catch this activity. What the impact assessment identifies are the new offences that we think will be caught by filling this narrow gap.
The hon. Member for Rotherham rightly stated that we need to change the culture, not lock up more offenders, and education is an important part of that. We recognise, however, the value of the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and others made, and therefore I am happy to confirm that the Government will review the operation of these offences after two years of their coming into force. This will include working with the police and the CPS and reviewing cases so far brought.
I will briefly deal with sharing. Amendment 5 would create a further offence of disclosing and sharing an upskirt image. We in the Department share the intention and desire to ensure that the sharing of images is robustly dealt with. The best way to do that, however, is not by way of an amendment to the Bill. Legislating in one area alone is not the right way forward. The Government are already looking at this wider issue. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has already asked the Law Commission to look into online abuse.
The first stage of that review, which is an analysis of the existing law, will be completed in October, and I am pleased to confirm that following the completion of this first phase, the Ministry of Justice, working with DCMS, will ask the Law Commission to take forward a more detailed review of the law around the taking and sharing of non-consensual intimate images. This will build on the Law Commission’s review of online abuse and allow the Government to consider how to address this issue more widely, rather than just for upskirting images. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said, it is not appropriate to legislate in a piecemeal way.
My right hon. Friend also mentioned the Scottish changes in 2016. My understanding of them is that they were not specific to upskirting but created a separate offence in relation to the distribution of intimate images in the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016. This is the broader approach that we in government want to continue.
In his amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch suggests that offenders under the age of 18 not be put on the sex offenders register at all. We are concerned that there will be offenders under the age of 18 who need to be on the register, and only if we put them on the register will we protect victims who need protection now and in the future. He also suggests that we need to toughen up and put everyone on it who is over 18. That will diminish the effect of the register and not allow police resources to be concentrated. For those reasons, and in the light of the fact that we are offering a review of legislation after two years and a review of offences more widely, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments.
Stella Creasy
I thank the Minister for listening. For the first time, we are now saying as a country that misogyny is not a part of life or something that should be tolerated but something we are going to tackle. Her commitment to the Law Commission review of all forms of hate crime, including misogyny, and the need for new and existing resources to fund it, is really welcome and a positive reflection of what this place can achieve. We have just sent a message to every young woman in this country that we are on their side. On that basis, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment. I look forward to working with the Minister and the Law Commission review in taking this forward.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I remind the House that before Second Reading, as required by the Standing Order, the entire Bill was certified as relating exclusively to England and Wales and within legislative competence. The Bill has not been amended since then. Copies of the certificate are available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website.
Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is required for the Bill to proceed. Copies of the motion are now available Does the Minister intend to move the consent motion?
Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting)
Stella Creasy ExcerptsThursday 12th July 2018
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 View all Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 July 2018 - (12 Jul 2018)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
It is an honour and a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for providing an opportunity to discuss this important issue, and I appreciate the impact that this activity can have on the individuals affected. I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke; I know she spent much time considering the Bill, including giving up her time on Tuesday to give evidence to the Committee. I am grateful for the leadership she provides as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, and the powerful position she has taken on tackling ongoing challenges around sexual harassment.
The three amendments that were tabled by my right hon. Friend and have been moved today by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd would remove the element of purpose, so that upskirting is caught in all circumstances, save for when a defence is established. Those defences are outlined in amendment 1. We understand the objective of ensuring that the offences are wide enough to catch all those who should be criminalised for taking upskirting photographs, and we understand the hon. Lady’s motivation in moving the amendments. It is important to raise and consider these issues, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.
Before turning to the amendments, it might be helpful to explain why the Bill has been drafted as it has. The Bill seeks to rectify a gap in the law. That gap exists in relation to where the act takes place: it is possible to prosecute for upskirting in a private place or a public place, but possibly not in a place that is neither private nor public, such as a school. A school is not open to the general public, so it is not public, but it is open to many, so one could not expect privacy.
The Bill specifies two purposes for which an offence can be committed: to obtain sexual gratification or to humiliate, alarm or distress the victim. The reason these purposes are identified is not only that they are clear and appropriate, but that they use language that is familiar to criminal justice agencies. These motivations are used in current legislation. They are used, word for word, in Scotland. They are also familiar to the English system. That means that the Bill as drafted has precedent in law, and we know it will catch inappropriate wrongdoing.
I will deal with a few criticisms that have been made of the Bill’s breadth. It has been said that it will not catch all those who should be caught—for example journalists, as the hon. Lady mentioned—but if a person takes a photograph with the intention of uploading it to a website where others will look at it for sexual gratification, the uploader will be caught. It will not matter that the person who took the image is not obtaining sexual gratification themselves—for example, if they just want to get paid for the photograph. If they share it with another person with the intention that that person obtains sexual gratification, they will still be caught by the new offences.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister talk us through how that would be proven? The concern for many of us is that by not taking out the differences of purpose for the actual offender, we will create a difficult investigatory chain. Will she explain how, if she keeps the requirements around purpose in the Bill, she would expect the police and courts to prove that third-party sexual gratification was part of the process?
Lucy Frazer
I was going to come on to those issues. Does the hon. Lady mind if I deal with them in a moment? I will deal with how motivation will be proven in a moment, but I will just finish the point about the breadth of the provisions.
A number of criticisms have been made; I have mentioned the one about journalists, but there are others. It has been said that the Bill will not catch those who carry out this activity for a laugh, but if the person knows that the laugh is for the purpose of humiliating the other person, they will be caught. As Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt said on Tuesday, it is hard to imagine any other reason for which someone would take an upskirt photo that could not be prosecuted under the new offences, as drafted. As Ryan Whelan said:
“There is no requirement that the prohibited motive be the only motive”.
The hon. Lady also referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, but it is important to point out that the CPS stated:
“We anticipate that most offending will fall comfortably within these categories.”
Lucy Frazer
I will take the intervention of the hon. Member for Walthamstow first.
Stella Creasy
For clarity, the Minister set out that if we were dealing with someone who had taken the photos not for their own sexual gratification but perhaps to make money from them, we would need to prove third-party sexual gratification. Will she explain how she expects that to be proven, as opposed to the sexual gratification of the original offender?
Lucy Frazer
I am happy to do so. Obviously, each case will depend on its own facts, but one can imagine a circumstance in which a journalist is taking photographs for money and that is his intention. However, he sells a photograph—he has taken it with the intention of selling it on—to a pornographic website on the internet. It would be difficult to suggest that that photo was being put up for any purpose other than for other people’s sexual gratification.
Alex Chalk
I rise briefly to oppose the amendments, although I recognise that they have validity and force. I am not suggesting that they are misconceived, but, on balance, the Committee should vote against if necessary, and I will explain why.
The first point is one that has already been made. We should not lose sight of the fact that almost everyone who has spoken about these matters recognises that the overwhelming majority of offending would comfortably have been caught. Although a point has been made about the Director of Public Prosecutions, it is worth considering precisely what she said in paragraph 2.6 of her written evidence:
“The Bill introduces purposes for which such activities are committed. We anticipate that most offending will fall comfortably within these categories.”
That is important—it is worth underscoring the point—because while one can imagine some individuals in court saying, “This was just for fun, wasn’t it? We were having a good time and it was just larks,” or equally a journalist saying, “My motivation was to get money,” it is always open to the Crown to say that that was a subordinate motivation that comes within the scope of the Bill. Therefore, it will be vanishingly rare, I suggest, for any defendant credibly to argue—with emphasis on the word “credibly”—that no part of his or her motivation fell within the scope of the Bill.
It is also worth considering the representations that were made in a wider context. Ryan Whelan, the lawyer representing Gina Martin, said in written evidence:
“However, most if not all of these cases”—
referring to other suggested motives—
“can be caught by the Bill as it stands. There is no requirement that the prohibited motive be the only motive and the offender who acts to humiliate, distress or alarm the victim is not somehow given a defence because he does those things for financial gain, a laugh or to exert power.”
The point I want to make is that, often, in life and with respect to the Bill, people do stupid and illegal things for a blend of motives. It is no good them standing in court and saying, “My primary motive is not within the Act. Therefore, I should walk out of this court scot free,” because most juries would give that short shrift.
Stella Creasy
This is a very interesting conversation. The only person who has mentioned how consent might influence such a decision was the Minister, in a very narrow context. The hon. Gentleman’s comments are all about the offender. If this is a victim-centred Bill, it does not matter whether somebody was having a laugh or was sexually gratified. It matters whether the person whose photo was taken said, “Yes.” Where does that come in his hierarchy?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Ultimately, we are trying to prevent offending so that victims can get justice. One aspect of victims getting justice is ensuring that something is put on the statute book as quickly and efficiently as possible. The key evidence, if I may say so—the centre of effort that came from Gina Martin’s evidence—is that she wants to see this on the statute book. For it to mirror the situation in Scotland has an added advantage.
The second point, over and above the inconsistency, is about the sexual offenders register, which is critically important for this reason. If someone is put on the sexual offenders register, that is major deal, because if they act in breach of that they will go inside. It is absolutely right, by the way, that that happens. If somebody commits an offence such as this for a sexual motive, it is quite correct that they should go on the sexual offenders register. Indeed, the overall tenor of the evidence is that the Bill is right to draw a distinction between those who commit the offence to humiliate or degrade and those who commit it to achieve sexual gratification.
Stella Creasy
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Buck, this fine Thursday morning. I rise partly in response to the hon. Member for Cheltenham. I apologise for being unable to listen to the second set of evidence. The Committee will have to forgive me; I am afraid I had a rather unpleasant medical emergency. Members will be pleased to see that I am back on my feet and trying to respond.
The amendments matter because of a couple of concerns that I want to put on the record. I understand the case set out by the hon. Member for Cheltenham from his experience. Let us take it as a given that everybody on the Committee wants the legislation to pass and be as good as it can be. The challenge and the difference is about whether it will meet that second test. The amendments address a concern that many of us have and that, if I am honest, the hon. Gentleman set out very well in how he talked about the crime and how he believes, given his experience as a criminal barrister, the legislation would be enacted. He did not at any point, even when I prompted him, say that the courts would consider the fact that the victim said, “No, I didn’t consent to this.”
The concern about setting out specific motivations is that it takes the power away from the victim to be the one who defines what happened, and that it is wrong. When we start to include particular categories, we take the conversation away from whether a woman such as Gina Martin, or a man who had a camera put up his kilt, said, “No,” or, when they found out what had happened, said, “That was not something I consented to.” Instead, we start quibbling about the motivations of the perpetrator. We all want to ensure that victims come first in the law.
Alex Chalk
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that victims should be in charge of their own bodily integrity, and that includes whether they are upskirted or touched intimately. However, on either formulation—the Government’s or that in the amendment—that is taken as read. In other words, it is a key part of the offence that it has to be shown that the victim did not consent. Of course, if the victim says, “Oh yeah, absolutely—I’m perfectly happy,” that is taken as read. It is the same in the Government’s formulation and in the amendment.
Stella Creasy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he and I disagree on that. By putting in notions about the motivation of the offence, we automatically start queering the conversation away from that very simple point—whether we can prove that the person consented—and we start saying, “Hang on a minute; was it about sexual gratification?” or, “Hang on a minute; can we prove it’s a third, or indeed a fourth, party?”
If only this was about pornographic websites. We live in a culture in which people will take such pictures and engage in that behaviour not just to humiliate, but to entertain. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is a regular reader of Heat magazine, and magazines such as Closer. He will have seen such pictures being used to entertain. The risk of setting out the motivations is that we create loopholes and take the focus away from consent. He and I agree that consent should be the primary focus. Saying it is taken as read is not the same as making it the primary, defining factor.
The right hon. Member for Basingstoke has been brilliant about identifying some of the challenges. By removing these requirements, we take the focus back to the victim. I worry, and I suspect that other Committee members worry too, that there will be a case in which somebody says, “It wasn’t for sexual gratification; I was making money, but doing so to entertain.” That is the world we live in now. We have voyeurism for the sake of voyeurism. There is no sexual element to it; there is simply the pleasure of seeing somebody else in an awkward position. It is not necessarily about humiliation or distress. Again, setting bars for what has to be proved would create an environment that none of us want.
Alex Chalk
If an individual who said, “I’m selling it to Closer magazine,” turned up in court and said, “Do you know what? I had no idea that it might humiliate, alarm or distress the victim”, does the hon. Lady really think that he is likely to be believed by a jury?
Stella Creasy
We are going to come on to some of the broader questions underpinning the offence. The sad truth is that this is not the first time that people have tried to humiliate, and to humiliate mainly women. This is not the first time that there has been a sense of entitlement to see, to judge and to talk about the privacy of a woman’s body. Do I have confidence that there would be people on the jury who would think, “Well, fair play”? Sadly, that is the society that we live in and we are making legislation in that society. I wish I could be with the hon. Gentleman in having confidence that in the 21st century people would recognise that treating women as pieces of meat for their entertainment is no longer acceptable, but, sadly, both case law and modern society tell us that we still have a long way to go.
The risk for all of us is that we create a loophole in the legislation, where people quibble about whether it was entertaining or not, rather than ask the simple question: did she say yes? Did she say she was happy for it to happen, because it was something she was doing for her career, or whatever? I wager him that we would have a case where we would have that kind of discussion, and ask him to think what it would be like for the victim in that circumstance to have motivation pored over in court, rather than the simple question of whether she said yes or no.
We are not pushing these amendments to a vote today, but we have to recognise that there is a risk that there could be a loophole. There is a risk that we are sending a message from this place that our focus is going to be all about the ins and outs of motivation, rather than on saying that, in 2018, consent and equality are what matters in our legislation and we will introduce legislation accordingly.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I rise to speak briefly on the question of motive, which we are all clearly thinking about. Although there is widespread support for the Bill, this is an important question on the detail.
I certainly feel that the weight of evidence we heard was on the side of victims, and victims arguing that motive should not matter. If someone were a victim of upskirting, whatever the reason for doing it, it would still feel awfully humiliating and degrading for that person. We have heard the concern that someone might argue in defence that it was just for a laugh or high jinks. I do not think any of us believe that that is appropriate, because it would be deeply humiliating, but there is a concern that that might be argued as a defence—even though, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, who has expertise in the area, has said, it would be highly unlikely that that would be permissible as a defence as the intention would clearly be to humiliate somebody.
The weight of evidence has been in support of the principle that motive should not matter. We should just think about the other side. Who would give evidence on the other side of the argument? There are lots of people who are standing up for victims, and we heard very compelling cases from people who have been victims, including a very powerful one that we have been asked not to quote from.
There was only one witness who gave the other side of the story very strongly. Lisa Hallgarten from Brook said:
“It is interesting that we are going from lots of schools not even excluding a child who has been proven to be involved in sexual bullying or harassment to moving to prosecution. It would be good to think about the different steps that are appropriate at different ages for a child and different kinds of offence.”––[Official Report, Voyeurism (Offences) (No.2) Public Bill Committee, 10 July 2018; c. 32, Q73.]
What she brought to light is that we are going from nought to 60 here. The Government are absolutely doing the right thing and I have huge respect for the hon. Member for Bath for pushing this—we must urgently plug this loophole in the law—but there is a question of proportionality and of making sure that we do not unintentionally criminalise people. Being a criminal would have such a huge impact on lives—I think about teenagers. As I say, it is totally inappropriate to do this for a laugh, and the level of sexual harassment and bullying in schools concerns me. The Minister mentioned that 10-year-olds and upwards may be criminalised by the Bill, so we must be mindful of the need to get the balance right.
Many of us have an instinct to be campaigners. We stand up for the women of the world and we want to put an end to such horrendous, degrading offences, which technology has made possible—the law has not necessarily kept up with technology—but in this room we are not so much campaigners as legislators. We must be conscious of the enormous power of Government, which has certainly struck me since I became a Member of Parliament, and ensure that our decisions are proportionate.
Liz Saville Roberts
Once again, I shall work with others to redraft and refine the amendment, in discussion with Members in the other place, with the intention of tabling it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stella Creasy
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 1, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(4A) Where a court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under this section, and either or both of the facts in subsection (4B) are true, the court—
(a) must treat the fact mentioned in subsection (4B) as an aggravating factor (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of an offence), and
(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.
(4B) The facts referred to in subsection (4A) are—
(a) if, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim having (or being presumed to have) a particular sex characteristic, or
(b) if the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards persons of who share a particular sex characteristic based on them sharing that characteristic.
(4C) For the purposes of subsection (4B), ‘sex characteristic’ means the protected characteristic of sex in section 11 of the Equality Act 2010.”
This amendment ensures that if the crime is motivated by misogyny then that will be considered by a court as an aggravating factor when considering the seriousness of the crime for the purposes of sentencing.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Requirement to amend guidance—
‘The Director of Public Prosecutions shall ensure, within six months of this Act coming into force, that any guidance issued under section 37A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended to ensure such guidance specifies information to be provided to the Director of Public Prosecutions to assist with—
(a) the prosecution of an offence under this Act, and
(b) the identification of any aggravating factor to an offence under this Act.”
This new clause requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure that guidance provided to the police is amended to require the police to provide information to assist with the prosecution of the offences under this Bill or the identification of any aggravating factors.
Stella Creasy
These proposals reflect the context in which we are trying to make legislation. Our conversation proves some of the challenges that we face, and today the national police chiefs are discussing this very issue. It is a simple truth that this country’s law now protects nine different characteristics, under the Equality Act 2010. However, that protection does not extend within our courts. Therefore, not only is there limited redress when people want to take on offences such as upskirting, but we cannot reflect where somebody’s protected characteristic was part of the offence in understanding how we challenge that offence and the message that we send. Currently, when aggravating factors are dealt with in sentencing—which is what the amendments relate to—there is a gap, which means protection is not offered in relation to somebody’s sex, although we offer that protection around somebody’s sexuality, racial background or religious background.
There is a simple, obvious conversation that we might have, which is, “Has somebody done this because, actually, they hate women and believe they have an entitlement to women? They believe that women are second-class citizens and that, therefore, it is their right to use film of them for entertainment.” That is not a new conversation in our society. Upskirting, and therefore the need for the Bill, reflects the fact that everyone now has a mobile phone in their pocket, but humiliating women, targeting women and treating women as pieces of meat for entertainment is a very old facet of our society.
These proposals recognise that if—superficially—we are legislating to deal with the symptoms of that attitude, we need to deal with the primary source. It is time, in 2018, for parity in the way we treat those protected characteristics—not just in the workplace, but in our court houses.
The proposals are about what we can do to tackle the cause of those problems and the fact that one woman in five in our society says she has been sexually harassed, and that upskirting is part of that. They build on the evidence we have from Nottingham that where misogyny is treated as a hate crime—that includes instances of upskirting—that has started to change the experience of victims when they report these crimes, and indeed the mindset of the police and the CPS in dealing with them.
That goes back to the question that the hon. Member for Cheltenham asked me. He seemed surprised that I would query that experience, but the honest truth is that for most women the experience of trying to report sexual harassment and of trying to say, “My body is not here to entertain you; it is here for me,” is very hard. Day in, day out, women in this country face a barrage of harassment and abuse, and upskirting is just one element of that.
Our legislation and our way of dealing with those crimes have not moved with recognising the cause, so we treat the symptoms. We come up with individual offences. We do not send the message that the issue is equality under the law. While we have the protections in the Equality Act, which are mirrored in amendment 6, they do not make a difference in court.
Some people will tell us, and I want to be clear that this is about sentencing when somebody has been proven to have done such a thing, that the courts could take account of them, but if somebody is targeting women—it does not have to be ethnic minority women, because then we could use the racially aggravated offence—we need to say that that is unacceptable in 2018.
In the same way, women who try to report harassment or upskirting have faced an uphill battle with the police, and that has come across in the evidence. We do not yet see hate against women as something that we have to say is on a par with racial hate and religious hate, so when women come forward to report such crimes, very often they get dismissed. Indeed, in some of the testimony, people talked about the police saying, “I’ll just delete it. It’s not that big a deal.” I can tell the Committee it is a big deal while we live in a society where we do not treat women and men equally, and we do not treat them equally under the law.
I hope that, today, the national police chiefs will look at the evidence from Nottingham and recognise that recording street harassment, including upskirting, as a form of hate crime and using that to drive how they identify where it happens, whether there are particular times that it happens and what that means for their policing priorities, will lead to a step change—not just as we have seen in Nottingham, but in every city, in every community. I am sure Members have all heard the stories about this happening.
I tabled these proposals to reflect the fact that this should happen after somebody has been found guilty. I recognised in the earlier amendments that the concept of consent should be the primary motivation as to whether somebody is found guilty of upskirting, and I also recognise the issue is not just about upskirting, but this is the legislation in front of us. As I have explained to the Minister, my purpose in tabling these proposals is to push these votes because we get so few opportunities to try to make legislation that really gets to the root cause of the problem. My fear is that even if we tackle upskirting, and even if new technology is created, the causes remain. The harassment, the inequality and the violence that women then face as a result will continue.
These proposals would do two things. First and foremost, they would put on par the ability of courts to take into account where there was evidence of hostility towards somebody as a result of their sex-protected characteristic. That is the legislation from the Equality Act. It is simply about equality. For Members who are not necessarily convinced on the argument about misogyny, this is simply about parity.
The new clause would encourage the police to do what I hope they will do today voluntarily: start collecting evidence for the purposes of being able to prosecute. The hon. Member for Cheltenham might argue that the courts might well be able to take into account harassment, but they cannot if there is no evidence and if the police have not built up a profile of, for example, the Dapper Laughs character—the person who has taken photos and encouraged people to take photos of women in compromising positions, not because they particularly find that sexually appealing, but because it is simply funny for them.
Why is that funny? Because it is about power. It is actually about the power to control and define what is important about that person by taking that photo. By taking away their mind, their voice or whatever they might say, and making it simply about their body, it is a power play and not sexual. But we would have no evidence for that because at the moment we do not systematically record this to enable us to say that that has been a particular offence.
I appreciate this element is new, and I understand people’s concerns about whether we should get into it in this Bill, but I say to the Minister that we have not had any opportunities and these debates have been around for some time. If she were to say to, “We are going to review this, because there is an anomaly here where we protect characteristics in other parts of legislation, but we do not protect characteristics in the court,” I would happily work with her and go away and look at this. I recognise these proposals might not be the right way to address the problem, but we cannot avoid this debate and this inequality any more, because it is upskirting this week, but it will be something else next week.
Misogyny is pervasive in our society and I would wager it is on the rise, because we live in a society where people think somehow we have equality. Every time I say that, all the men in the room look quizzical and all the woman roll their eyes, because we know how much further we have to go. These proposals highlight a simple point about this legislation, which is that it fits a symptom of a bigger challenge, and if we can target the bigger challenge, we can make real progress.
One of the frustrations for me as a Back Bencher is how few opportunities we get to make any real progress on issues such as this, so I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say. Has the Ministry of Justice been looking at these issues and the evidence from Nottingham on how treating misogyny as a hate crime has driven change in how issues such as upskirting are dealt with?
I am really interested to hear what the Minister thinks we can do, if we do not accept these proposals, to make it explicit that, if somebody targets women in this way and shows that hostility, the courts should be able to take that into consideration. There should be a requirement to have the evidence to be able to make that case.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Member for Walthamstow has campaigned hard on a number of issues, including this one. I am grateful to her for her interesting and thoughtful speech and for giving us the opportunity to discuss these issues.
Upskirting is a terrible crime and an horrific invasion of privacy for those affected, and it is right that offenders are appropriately punished. Creating a specific upskirting offence sends a clear message to potential perpetrators that such behaviour is serious and will not be tolerated. The offence carries a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment, which is a serious penalty. It is in line with the sentence for racially aggravated assault, assaulting a police constable while resisting arrest and other sexual offences, such as voyeurism and exposure. Additionally, the Bill will ensure that the most serious sexual offenders are subject to notification requirements, having been put on the sex offenders register. Those are common with sexual offences and assist the police with the management of sex offenders in the community.
Statutory aggravating factors do not usually apply to just one or two offences, as would be the effect of the amendment. Judges already take into account, on a factual basis in sentencing, the circumstances of the case. Creating an additional aggravating factor for this new offence would make it inconsistent with all other sexual offences. There is no rationale for the amendment to apply specifically to this offence alone.
Similarly, it would be wrong to suggest that patterns of offending would not be considered in sentencing. For example, if in addition to taking a photo the offender went on to share it with others, the additional harm caused would be taken into account in sentencing. If the offender took hundreds of images of women, rather than just one, the additional harm or potential harm caused would be linked directly to the seriousness of the offence and would be taken into account in sentencing. If the offender has been convicted of a similar or the same offence previously, or if a prior offence indicated intent or aggression on the basis of gender, it must be considered by the judge in determining the appropriate sentence.
In addition, the independent Sentencing Council already publishes guidelines, setting out the factors that magistrates and judges should consider in determining the seriousness of offending and the harm caused for the purposes of sentencing. An updated version of the guidelines is currently the subject of a public consultation.
Stella Creasy
Will the Minister talk us through the message she thinks we are sending? We have religiously and racially aggravated offences where we specifically say—not for individual cases, but as a matter of course—that it is a challenge where someone is motivated by hostility around someone’s race or religion. What message does she think that sends, and why does she not think we should send the same message about someone who is motivated by hostility towards a certain sex?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Lady raises an interesting and broad issue. It is a conversation that we need to have and that it is good to have, but the question before us today is the legislation and the appropriateness of the measures we are putting forward in this Bill, which is about upskirting. It is a narrow issue. I recognise her frustration and desire to raise the issues she cares about in a broad sense in a narrow Bill, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent said earlier, as legislators—the Government, the Opposition and Parliament—we have an obligation to ensure that the legislation we are putting forward, debating and voting on is appropriate.
Stella Creasy
I do not disagree with the Minister. I believe that misogyny as an aggravating factor could be ascribed to a number of offences. If she will forgive me, I will not take lessons from her about legislating. As an Opposition MP, it is not within my gift to timetable the legislation to be able to deal with these things. She said it is an interesting conversation, but will she commit to reviewing the anomaly we are pointing out with the amendments? Right now, we do not protect sex in the same way that we protect race and religion within sentencing. Through that review, the points that the hon. Member for Cheltenham and I are making could be addressed. Will she at least commit to that review? It would be welcome.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Lady says she is a Back-Bench MP and so does not have the power or ability to change laws, but let us remember how this legislation came before the House. It was a private Member’s Bill brought forward by a Back-Bench MP. The Government have supported the Bill because it is the right Bill to take forward. It identifies a gap in the law, and we are bringing it forward.
I would also like to touch on the statutory guidance referred to in the hon. Lady’s new clause. It is important to ensure that the legislation is applied effectively by police and prosecutors so that this behaviour is tackled robustly and consistently. I should point out that we already have that in train. Following a request from the previous Lord Chancellor to the then Home Secretary and then Attorney General, work is under way to develop and update the guidance on upskirting, without the need for legislation to command us to do so.
We are committed to working together across the Government to ensure that the new offences and the existing law are used effectively to tackle upskirting. The Home Office is working with the College of Policing to develop police guidance on the powers that currently exist to tackle some cases of upskirting, including outraging public decency. The guidance will be further updated to capture the proposed changes to the law in the Bill. The guidance will be aimed at all frontline officers, control room staff and investigators and will be created in consultation with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the CPS.
The previous Attorney General discussed this issue with the DPP, and they are clear that all cases involving upskirting need to be considered carefully. The CPS will ensure that guidance is updated to reflect the proposed new offences, as well as to raise awareness of existing offences.
Stella Creasy
I am going to push the Minister on the point about a review. It is wonderful to see a Back-Bench private Member’s Bill get Government attention. All of us recognise the circumstances in which that was made an imperative, but the reality is that the Government set the timetable for dealing with these issues. If she is serious that these are issues that the Home Office is updating guidance on, and that people are starting to look at this anomaly around misogyny versus other forms of hate crime, will she commit to a review? Will she commit to going away with her assistants and looking at these issues, and asking whether there is a case for change, such that she might bring forward legislation herself? Otherwise, these are warm words and, as the suffragettes taught us, it is deeds, not words, that matter.
Lucy Frazer
Just to clarify, the guidance I was talking about is the guidance in relation to upskirting—that is what is being updated. The Government always keep matters under review. We keep criminal law under review. I am sure that the Home Office, where matters affect it, also keeps issues under review. While I recognise the intent behind the amendments, I ask the hon. Lady not to press them.
Stella Creasy
It is interesting whether people put their money where their mouth is, and how we recognise when we can make progress. Too often, especially when it comes to women’s issues, the question is to do it at some other time. I am sorry to hear the Minister not committing to a review. I would happily have worked with her on that review and the evidence. I fear that the police chiefs will be ahead of her in committing to make the recording of misogyny as a hate crime something that the police do, which would be very welcome. I am also sorry that Labour Front Benchers are not with us on the importance of making progress where we can.
I have no desire to split people on this, but I think there is support for it. I put the Minister on notice, however, that it will come back on Report. I also tell my Front Benchers that it will come back on Report, and I hope that they will be more positive.
The other thing I am worried about is that on a Bill about controlling women, it appears that some people have been told that amendments in Committee delay things. That is clearly not the case and we would not want to send a message that we are trying to deal with the symptoms, rather than the cause—which is what misogyny is—and that we are going to control women and restrict what they can change. It took 100 years for some women to get the vote. Let us not wait 100 years to make legislation that works for women. At this point, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
We have already had a thorough and very good debate on clause 1, so I am not inclined to have a stand part debate unless hon. Members are actively seeking one, which I do not believe they are.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)
Stella Creasy Excerpts(7 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Q
Gina Martin: It is very difficult. I think the feeling of harassment was compounded. I have not separated out in my mind which I think was worse, because it was just a very horrible blurry event. I just hated all of it, if I am being totally honest. That is my very human response to it.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Gina Martin: That is a question that is more for a lawyer. I am not a lawyer, and I am not going to sit here and talk about the legislation in detail. One thing you touched on there was monetary gain. I would like to say categorically that of course I would like to see that we could prosecute at some point the paparazzi and photographers who do this. I am of the understanding that that needs to be done very, very carefully, with a lot of detail, to ensure that there are no unexpected consequences. I do not necessarily think that we should delay this process to look at that specifically—that is for another time.
Also, having worked specifically in the media for a very long time, I am very aware that if one celebrity decided to prosecute and raised charges using outraging public decency against paparazzi that would change very quickly. There is a big amount of education that needs to go on in that area. That is my feeling on that.
The Chair
We are doing commendably well, but we are going to run out of time, so I will call Stella Creasy and then the Minister.
Stella Creasy
Q
Gina Martin: In terms of?
Stella Creasy
If they are shown to be hostile towards women because they have gone out and done this several times. Perhaps they have made websites of all the pictures they have taken and they have shown a different approach—a sense of entitlement—to being able to take pictures of women in this way. Do you think that level of behaviour should be reflected in and have an impact on the sentence they get, if they have been found to have taken the pictures and breached the conditions?
Gina Martin: Yes, I feel like this constantly repeated behaviour, the sinister intention and the power play have to be taken into account, and their behaviour would be taken into account by prosecutors.
Stella Creasy
Q
Gina Martin: It is difficult for me to say without knowing the process. I would not want to sit here and give advice, because I do not know the process of prosecuting this. I have been leading the campaign as a victim, so it would be difficult for me to give that advice. If Ryan was here, I am sure he would be happy to talk to you about that and to give you a more comprehensive answer. It would be remiss of me to give you an answer on that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
Q
Gina Martin: Yes, that is where I stand currently.
Julian Knight
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: Yes. I introduced that concept of image-based sexual abuse, but that was just to make the point that there is a range of ways that people can offend using digital imagery. It was not to suggest that we ought to make this any less clear than it would appear to be. The one exception that I might make around that is whether there is a potential to add an element around distribution or sharing of that image, because, at the moment, the legislation does not go to that stage. As I said, there is some evidence that there are places where people go to upload these images. I think that is taking that offence to a further stage and is adding to the backdrop. That may be worth considering, but we should have absolute clarity about the core elements of that offence.
Stella Creasy
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: I am not sure that I can answer that question, but I understand the point you are making. It feels to me that the intrusion of going in and under a garment—the skirt; I know you don’t have to physically—takes it to a slightly further stage than an image of somebody that is taken clearly outside their clothing. You are in the same territory, but I do think there is something particularly invasive about somebody being able to take an image up a skirt. But I understand the point you are making.
Stella Creasy
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: If you have not given consent to somebody to take a photograph that is sexualised, you have not given consent to them. I accept that point entirely. That takes us to the last question about clarity. To my knowledge, the phenomenon we are facing, particularly at the moment, is this phenomenon of upskirting, and it would be really good for us to be able to send a very clear message. I get that someone taking a photograph of someone’s breasts or backside from other angles is offensive, but I am not sure—I think it might confuse.
Stella Creasy
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: I am not sure the circumstances you describe are about misogyny. For me, that is about somebody who is a more serious predatory sexual offender. I see this in sexual offending terms. I will be there on Thursday as part of the debate you describe.
Stella Creasy
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: That is for the debate on Thursday. I do not want to pre-empt that debate. For me, this is about sexual offending. If it is proven that an individual has done this repeatedly, or has followed certain people, or is putting himself in certain places to do that, that is an aggravating factor that I would expect the prosecution—and ultimately, if they were convicted, the sentencing—to take into consideration, as opposed to the person where it appears to be a one-off issue.
Stella Creasy
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: But this will be women, in the way the Bill is drafted at the moment, will it not?
Stella Creasy
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: That sounds fairly complex to me and you would have to ask the courts to answer that question. I see where you are going. I think I would keep this more purely in the realm of sexual offending and the pattern of behaviour of that person as a sexual offender. Whether that is about an approach in a relationship with women is a different thing.
Stella Creasy
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: I do think we should be tackling them; it is just whether this is the right legislation to tackle them with. I think the courts will have to consider that.
Parole Board: Transparency and Victim Support
Stella Creasy Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
Yes, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. As a society, the direction that we have gone in more generally has been towards greater transparency. As Professor Nick Hardwick was one of the first to make that point, there is clearly a case in this context for the Parole Board as well.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Although all of us understand the desire not to prejudice any possible action by the victims, a letter from the Secretary of State’s predecessor on 8 January—it is a public letter open to MPs—states that the victims were not contacted until October, having last had contact in 2009. He knows the concern that it is not just about updating victims, but about involving them in Parole Board decisions. Can he give an assurance that the involvement and participation of victims will be looked at and that he will publish the date in October when contact was made with the Warboys’s victims so that we can understand the process used?
Mr Gauke
With regard to the facts of a particular case, that is exactly what Dame Glenys Stacey will be investigating. I have no doubt that she will make public her conclusions. It is very important that victims are involved. I know that in this case they are involved, as I said earlier, in making representations in terms of licensing conditions. It is right that due and appropriate weight is given to those representations when it comes to determining the licensing conditions.
Parole Board and Victim Support
Stella Creasy Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
Of course, the IPP cases are essentially historic in the sense that those sentences no longer apply; but while approximately 3,000 IPP prisoners remain in jail, it is a question of testing whether there is a risk to the public once the tariff has been met, as my right hon. Friend sets out. Of course, a different system applies to those who do not fall within the IPP test.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Lord Chancellor to his new job. He may be aware that on Friday, a cross-party group of 58 MPs wrote to his predecessor, to express our concerns not so much about transparency in decision making but about the right of victims to be heard by the Parole Board and for their information to influence decisions. His successor wrote back to us, stating that the victim support people had tried to make contact in October, for a hearing in November, with people with whom they had not had contact since 2009.
Will the Lord Chancellor, in his review, look explicitly, not at the transparency of how decisions were made, but at how victims’ voices were heard as part of that process? If he is not satisfied, as it seems that many of these victims were not told how they could have their say, will he use his powers to instigate a judicial review of the decision?
Mr Gauke
The hon. Lady raises an important point about victims’ voice being heard throughout the process. In the review, I want to focus on the areas that I have particularly set out, but it is important to look at the whole process of victim support and ensuring that the voice of victims is heard, so that it works for victims in the way that we all want it to work.
Prison Officers Association: Protest Action
Stella Creasy Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Elizabeth Truss
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that crimes committed in prison against prison officers need to be treated extremely seriously, and I am working closely with the Attorney General and the Home Secretary to make sure that that is followed through.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
We all welcome the Secretary of State’s willingness to tackle violence in prisons by funding additional officers, but she must be honest with the House about how this does not extend to those people working in our prisons in the private sector. Prisoners do not choose whether they end up in a public or private establishment, and those who work in the private sector, including those from my Community union, perform a public service in guarding those prisoners, whether the contract is directly with the Government or not. What is she going to do to help ensure the safety of all in our prisons and give them the respect they deserve?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and I can confirm that those increases will also apply in the private sector as well as in the public sector.