Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Stella Creasy and Robert Buckland

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 17th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. I hope that is taken up in the other place as well. As Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I want to discuss that further with him and with Ministers in the Home Office or the Northern Ireland Office—directly with the Home Office would probably be the best way forward.

That opens up the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) about the interaction of Scots law with all this. She is not wrong to remind us that Scots law looks at parliamentary sovereignty differently from the law of England and Wales. We cannot get around that. However, I would qualify her remarks by saying that that is overcome by having a United Kingdom Supreme Court, which has at the moment two very distinguished Scots lawyers, in the form of the president and vice-president, who understand these principles deeply. At any time, the composition of that Court will include senior Scots lawyers, and it also has a senior judge from Northern Ireland, Lord Stephens.

The whole function of the Supreme Court is to bring together the slightly differing concepts of constitutional law that undoubtedly exist in our jurisdictions and strike the right balance, based on restraint—we come back to that word again. I will not labour the point I made yesterday, but my hon. and learned Friend the Minister knows that he is walking a tightrope to get this legislation right. Anything that smacks of a lack of restraint, such as the amendments tabled by hon. Friends—I said obliging things yesterday and I will repeat them today—does not follow that sense of restraint and balance.

It is about the risk of an imbalance not just between the courts of England and Wales and this Parliament, but between the differing jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. That should give us all pause for thought, particularly those of us deeply committed to our Union and who believe in this United Kingdom. I am not saying that my hon. Friends are deliberately trying to undermine that, but I am sounding a word of warning about treading too heavily down this path of exceptionalism and going too far in normalising what were the exceptional circumstances of withdrawal from the EU. I should know about that because I sat on that Front Bench making the case for many of the provisions in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act that are cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and others. Those were exceptional times.

I know that this is an exceptional global challenge, but before I conclude my remarks, I will simply say that we need to tread carefully. If we do not do so, in trying to deal with an external problem we will create internal, constitutional and legal problems of our own. I do not think that any self-respecting Conservative Government would want to do that, and no self-respecting Parliament would want to follow that. For those reasons, I urge right hon. and hon. Members to reject many of the amendments that complicate the Bill, and to follow the maxim that less is more.

[Stella Creasy]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and many of the colleagues sat next to him who have brought an immense level of legal expertise to their concerns about the Bill. Let me try to offer something different, as somebody who is not legally qualified: a lay person’s view or perspective on what the Bill is doing, in particular why I tabled and will speak to amendment 9, and why I support the amendments in the name of my Front Bench colleagues.

This is not about the R of refugees or even the R of Rwanda; it is about the R of rights—the rights we enjoy that protect those freedoms and liberties that so many of us fight for, are passionate about, and believe are intrinsic to a good life. The Government state that the Bill is:

“a clear statement of Parliament’s view that Rwanda is safe, ‘notwithstanding’ all specified domestic legislation and the common law, and any alternative interpretation of international law including customary international law”.

For those of us who are not qualified, the word “notwithstanding” is doing an awful lot of work to justify the diminution of rights for people in our country and the concept that somehow international law does not protect us.

So much of the anger we have heard about the idea of a foreign court has come from it being about the European Court of Human Rights: that it is an affront to our democracy that that organisation is part of protecting those rights, liberties and freedoms on which we depend. How dare Winston Churchill sign us up to such a thing? How dare he believe that working with other countries was the way to protect those rights? As he said:

“In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law.”

The scoundrel. What sort of rights was he trying to protect? What sort of abuses by the state did he dare to think we might need a court to uphold for us? The right to family life? A travesty, surely. The right to privacy? I mean, goodness me, what a terrible thing to be concerned about. The right to freedom from torture or the right to liberty, or even the right to freedom of thought? Well, no wonder we need to look at all this again. How terrible those things must sound to those of us who are not legally qualified and who cannot see the rub there.

Let me to try think through a real world example of why those rights might be upheld by a third party. One could think of somebody, perhaps a Member of this House who did not have the respect and courtesy for other people speaking in this debate to even stay and listen to them shortly after he had spoken; somebody who thought that the rules did not apply to him, that the treatment of others was not something that mattered and who perhaps was far too busy worrying about his social media account. The Chair would want to hold him to account, and rightly so. Goodness, many of us would think he might need legal representation for what could happen next. He would want his day in court. He might not want to be in the Chamber when we were talking about those very issues. He might be concerned about the idea of a judge and jury existing in the same person. The very principles that led to setting up the European Court of Human Rights are ones that we all feel every single day, because it does not just defend those basic things like a right to family life or the right to privacy, it also defends a process by which those rights are upheld. Even if the Chair wanted to take somebody to task for not following the rules in this place, they might at least be entitled to a fair hearing or a fair trial for what they had done.

Yet what the Bill does is remove that concept of a fair hearing from those people in our country who are often some of the most vulnerable: people fleeing torture and persecution. They want to uphold Government Ministers as judge and jury, and it does not even align with their own data on how many people they were granting asylum to when their cases were heard. Nevertheless the point about the ECHR is the point that was understood by Churchill and, I believe, by many of us in the Chamber: we withdraw at our peril the opportunity for that freedom to be heard, that freedom for a fair trial and for somebody else to hear your case against an overbearing state.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Stella Creasy and Robert Buckland

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland). I have much sympathy for him and his attempts to speak to deaf ears.

We are back dealing with the renegade masters of this Government and their ill behaviour—the arrogance they have yet again expressed towards the concept of parliamentary scrutiny. People watching these proceedings —few, I am sure, on a lovely Wednesday sunny afternoon—will understand what is being said: “Our way, or no way at all.” The amendments are a reasonable way of trying to address the loss of parliamentary scrutiny—the ministerial power grab—that this Bill represents.

It is seven years since we were told that Brexit was all about taking back control; seven years that we have been waiting for any kind of benefit at all; and seven years in which our constituents have certainly seen the damage that has been done. The only benefit that the Bill will bring is to Downing Street. It takes back power not to the people, but to the Prime Minister. That is why thousands of people have been writing to their MPs, begging and pleading them to look at the damage that the Bill would do to the powers in this place and to their voice in that process. Following the logic of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), we could call anything Brexit. He wants to say, “Well, we had a referendum, so this piece of legislation, as it is currently written, must go through this place unamended.” Well, I would quite like all the money that we were promised for the NHS also to go through this place, but we cannot always get what we want. My constituents are concerned about democracy; that is why people writing to us; that is why there is a concern about the process that the Bill would set up. The powers that it gives, that continue way beyond any sunset date at the end of this year, are over consumer rights, environmental standards and employment rights.

Let us be honest: in a week when the reputation of Parliament could not get much lower, any attempt to restore the ability of a Member of Parliament to represent their constituents, propose amendments or participate in scrutiny—not just shout at Ministers about something that they will pass without challenge—cannot be a bad thing. I welcome their lordships having stood up for the role we could play. We have seen a week in which some MPs would rather have gone to watch the cricket than come to Westminster to do their job, but some of us still think that there is a job worth turning up for and that we should do that job.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

rose—

[Stella Creasy]

I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees. I have never seen him at the cricket. I will gladly give way.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

Some of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), love cricket, but we can do both, and that is why we are here.

[Stella Creasy]

In fairness to the hon. Member for Stone, I recognise that he was here on Monday and is here today. On the powers of this Bill, he is like the Earl of Lucan—leading his cavalry into the charge of the Light Brigade—because he has already seen the arrogance of Ministers in responding to his concerns. I will never understand why he is giving away the power that he has as a Back-Bench MP to challenge for things—things that I might disagree with, but that, in a democracy, I would stand up for his right to argue for—but he is doing that today and he has done so consistently because he thinks this Bill is Brexit. It is not.

This Bill is a complete break-up of our parliamentary system, because it gives Ministers powers over 4,000 areas of legislation, using statutory instrument Committees with hand-picked groups of MPs to wave through any changes that Ministers want to make. And what has the hon. Gentleman got out of the process? He has got a list of the things that are not going to be deleted that he would like to see deleted. What a glorious victory that is. Little wonder the Earl of Cardigan would be looking at him—

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Stella Creasy and Robert Buckland

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Buckland]

Well, answer that! I entirely agree with the hon. Member. There is no evidence at all that this Government seek to take a different course from their stated aim of protecting world-leading environmental protection and food standards. Therefore, we have to ask what the purpose of Lords amendment 15 is. It seems to me that many parts to the amendment would give rise to a significant amount of litigation. I do not think that is at all what the drafters of the amendment want, and it certainly does not help with regard to clarity of the law.

That brings me to new Lords amendment 16C, which, with absolute candour, seems to me to be a step back by their lordships from the previous iteration of that amendment. It is now narrowed down just to clause 15. I understand the concerns that the noble Lords have about the use of the power in clause 15 because it is, on the face of it, a dramatic power that the Government would have. On one level, the power of revocation seems to me to be welcome. I note within it particular caveats about the creation of new functions, particularly the creation of criminal offences. There has been a long-established convention about the use of such powers, and we all have a concern about the creation of criminal offences that are more serious than ones they seek to replace or, indeed, are serious new offences. I note the taxation and public authority restrictions as well, so a lot of the normal restrictions are built into the provision, which are welcome.

What the noble Lords are asking for is more reassurance about the process. I do not criticise them at all for that, because it does not seem unreasonable to me that there should be at least some process, particularly when new regulations are being created. I would gently press the Minister to consider that discrete point. It may well be, in response to anything that I or other hon. Members say, that he has an opportunity to enlarge on that. It does seem to me not unreasonable to ask for that further check and balance. I do not think it is the sort of unwelcome additional bureaucracy that perhaps he and others are concerned about. Fundamentally, we have a duty as parliamentarians to protect the role of this place in particular in the scrutiny of the passage of important new regulations, whatever form they may take.

If we take Brexit out of this and take the temperature right down, I do not think that is an unreasonable point at all. I do not accept the characterisation that a number of noble Lords are embarking upon some mission here to frustrate the approach that the Government are taking in the Bill. It is a Bill I have supported, and a Bill I have said is absolutely necessary as a special mechanism to deal with retained EU law. We all agreed that this was a particular area of law that needed to be held in suspense and then looked at carefully in its individual parts. Lords amendment 16C does seem to me to reflect that and respect that. The other two matters I have dealt with, and I am more than satisfied with the Minister’s response to that, but I do press him on that particular aspect and that particular amendment. I will not trouble the House any further.

[Stella Creasy]

Getting any detail out of this Government about what they intend to use the powers in the Bill for has been like pulling hens’ teeth. Even now, with the Bill before us today, about to be passed imminently, we still do not know the full effect it will have. I will make a few brief comments.

The right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) talked about the Government’s recognition that we need to know not just the regulations but the direct effect cases that are being deleted. In the other place last week, the Government said they

“will add Section 4 rights to the dashboard as identified at least as frequently as every six months, as per the reporting requirement clause that is already in the Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 June 2023; Vol. 830, c. 1263.]

Nothing has changed since last week, so we still do not know what legal judgments the Government intend to delete—legal judgments that cover multiple rights including employment rights and environmental standards.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Stella Creasy and Robert Buckland

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[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.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Stella Creasy and Robert Buckland

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful point about Scotland. Scotland moved straight from “breach of the peace” legislation to legislation on stalking, so the comparison is quite dramatic. We in England and Wales are in a slightly better position, but the comparison is nevertheless invidious, which is why the proposed change in the law is so essential and welcome.

[Stella Creasy]

In order to establish whether the present proposals will deal with our concerns adequately, it is worth considering what has happened in Scotland as a result of the legislation providing for a specific offence, and also making comparisons with what is offered by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

On behalf of the House, let me thank those who have been campaigning on these issues, and who have led action both in the House and outside. Working with Protection against Stalking and the National Association of Probation Officers, the all-party inquiry into stalking— in which I know the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) participated—has tirelessly and persistently made the case for new legislation. I pay tribute to both those organisations, and to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who is present, for all their work on the inquiry.

Although she was not able to be here today, I think that the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), deserves credit for putting the case for the legislation in September last year. She also stressed the need for stronger sentencing and police training to improve responses.

Finally, I think that we must all pay particular tribute to Baroness Royall, who, back in November, began tabling amendments to the Bill in the other place to introduce this law in some form and thus to force action on the issue. We can see that that tactic has worked. Ministers initially refused to accept the case, saying that the current legislation covered criminal behaviour of this kind, but their view has now changed, and that change is welcome. I note that Lord Henley himself acknowledged the work of Lady Royall in raising the issue.

[Stella Creasy]

When I discussed the proposals with the police, they were anxious to ensure that we used this opportunity to get the proposals right. I welcomed their acknowledgment of concern about the way in which the legislation had been used to deal with the problems, and about the lack of training in what stalking might involve.

As a result of this pressure, we stand here today to debate not whether proposals are needed, but the strength of the proposals that are on the table. We can see how the proposals are evolving as the Government respond to people who have been campaigning. The new amendments—as opposed to the proposals that were put to the other place last week—reflect further movement in the right direction, given the Government’s initial response to Baroness Royall’s proposals.

It is in the spirit of ensuring that the Bill is meaningful and effective that Labour Members have tabled further amendments today. Having championed the need for legislation, we wish to ensure that this opportunity is not wasted. When we test the Lords amendment against the realities of the crime that we are discussing, and indeed the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), we still see difficulties. In particular, we fear that the amendment presents the appearance of progress while failing to deliver through its confusing demarcation between section 2A and section 4A offences. We also believe that it does not give the criminal justice system the full confidence that it needs to be able to address this crime in its many manifestations, whether through investigation, prosecution or conviction.

Our amendments (a) and (b) would ensure that the Bill would be what I call future-proof. When the Protection from Harassment legislation was enacted in 1997, Google did not exist. One of the compelling examples of the behaviour of the persecutor of Claire Waxman was the fact that he had searched for her name 40,000 times in a single year. The amendment reflects the need not only to train all who work in the criminal justice system to recognise that stalking can manifest itself in many ways, but to ensure that the legislation can keep pace with the innovation. As we have heard, many victims experience multiple forms of harassment, and do so many times before it is reported. These amendments would enable the Secretary of State to respond to the creativity of perpetrators and ensure that all those charged with protecting the public from these crimes are able to act. The inclusion of “inter alia” and the ability to include additional clarification will give confidence to the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the magistrates courts that these kinds of conduct could in future be relevant to this offence.

If the Government will not accept the amendments, they must set out now, on the record, how they propose to ensure that the criminal justice system is able fully to comprehend and respond to the way in which fixations occur, both online and offline.

[Mr Buckland]

I am listening with great care to the hon. Lady’s argument about the use of the phrase “inter alia”. There may be a bit of an irony in using legal Latin to anticipate developments in respect of Google and Twitter, but I do not criticise her for that. The Lords amendment lists

“examples of acts or omissions”.

That is therefore a non-exhaustive list, so the problem the hon. Lady rightly identifies as possibly occurring cannot occur on the basis of any reasonable interpretation of the Lords amendment as it currently stands.

[Stella Creasy]

This is a point of genuine disagreement, because there is concern that what should be seen as a non-exhaustive list of behaviours and conducts for the offence of stalking will instead be seen as a list of the only such behaviours and conducts. We are trying to ensure both that training is given to all sectors of the criminal justice system and that there is clarification about the wide range of perpetrator behaviours that can be included. I gave the example of Google in order to argue that if the idea of cyber-stalking had been considered when the protection from harassment law was introduced in 1997, legislators might have recognised the need to address it. Given that we so rarely get an opportunity to draft legislation, it is important that we make any new laws as robust as possible, such as by ensuring that the Secretary of State can intervene. We believe that our proposal would offer an opportunity to address any concerns that might arise. Law makers might say, “This is a list of stalking behaviours and anything else isn’t stalking.” If the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment, they must explicitly state how they will ensure that this list does not become the only list of examples, rather than a starting point for our law makers.

Our amendments to Lords Amendment 51 go to the heart of the inconsistencies in the proposals. We challenge the retention of a section 2A offence of stalking and the creation of a section 4A offence of stalking, differentiated by the concept of seriousness. We welcome the fact that, in response to Baroness Royall, the Government’s position has moved from that of the amendments tabled in the Lords, which set out stalking as purely involving a fear of violence. The new provisions go much further towards recognising the need to be able to act against perpetrators without waiting for physical harm as well as the different ways in which this crime impacts upon victims, and that is certainly welcome. However, the strengthening of section 4A does not undermine the inconsistency created by the retention of a section 2A offence for stalking.

Under Government amendments (i), (j) and (k), section 4A will apply when someone has suffered

“serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on”

their

“usual day-to-day activities”.

Yet section 2A sets out a less well-defined offence of stalking that would secure a lower level tariff. That offence would be triable only in a magistrates court, with a fine or maximum penalty of just six months’ imprisonment. We believe that such a distinction between different offences and courses of action does not stand scrutiny. Specifically, it is unclear from the evidence of this crime what kinds of cases would fall under section 2A rather than section 4A. In respect of the wording of the new amendments, it appears that a distinction would be based on proving that someone has suffered a “serious” form of distress. Therefore, the Government must set out how that could be proved—for example, whether it would be similar to psychiatric injury, where we need a psychiatrist to say there has been a serious impact on the central nervous system. This also raises the prospect of medical records having to be disclosed, potentially giving more information to the stalker at court and also creating a higher burden to prove, so the CPS would again be less likely to charge under Section 4 and default to Section 2A, with the resulting lesser options for punishment.

We as parliamentarians should reflect upon whether we would ask the victims to have their lives altered as a marker of such seriousness. The survey commissioned by the university of Leicester for the Network for Surviving Stalking found that one third of victims of stalking said that they had lost their job or relationship or had been forced to move because of the stalking. Some 92% reported physical effects and 98% reported emotional effects, ranging from anxiety, sleep disturbances, anger and distrust to depression, self-harm and post-traumatic stress disorder. Half of all the victims had changed their telephone number; half of them had given up social activities; half of them had seen their performance at work affected; and a third of them had relocated. If the Home Secretary wishes to retain these divisions, she must tell us whether it is justifiable to ask victims to prove that their lives have been changed in such a serious way before we can offer them real protection. Does she not see the risk that the police could apply this “seriousness” test in choosing whether to investigate and secure a section 2A or section 4A offence, leaving victims in the horrific position of having to prove that their lives have been damaged in these ways in order to secure effective action against the perpetrators?

As many experts have pointed out, this distinction risks retaining one of the problems with the existing legislation: it is extremely unusual for someone to be found guilty under section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, with just 170 of the 786 people found guilty being given a custodial sentence. Some 53,000 harassment cases were recorded by the police in 2009-10, but in only 23 was a custodial sentence of more than 12 months given for breaching a restraining order and in just 27 was such a sentence given for putting someone in fear of violence. Under the current legislation, most perpetrators receive restraining orders on multiple occasions and yet still receive fines and non-custodial sentences. Both the National Association of Probation Officers and Protection Against Stalking state that they believe that

“similar outcomes will come from an analysis of court proceedings under 2A.”

Even if a case can be made for the retention of a “lesser” offence of stalking, the division also limits the ability of the Crown Prosecution Service to respond to cases effectively by setting out two separate paths for the same crime. As NAPO and PAS have pointed out, allowing the offence to be triable either way would have two advantages. First, if evidence came out during a magistrates court trial indicating that the matter was more serious than first thought and may warrant a sentence of more than six months, the case could be sent to the Crown court for sentence. Secondly, many stalkers who do not threaten violence and who may be tried under section 2A for less serious matters are, nevertheless, highly persistent. Without the power to refer to a Crown court, such people could appear persistently in magistrates courts, being liable only for six months’ imprisonment and automatically released at three months —if they were tagged, they would come out after one month and continue their behaviour.

The amendments tabled by the Government maintain the risk that offences will not be adequately addressed, as at present, because they ask the CPS to choose between “lower-level” offences of stalking, as yet undefined, and those considered “more serious”. The challenge for all involved in addressing this offence will be to make such a distinction in any meaningful way as to merit it.

In contrast, our proposed amendments to Lords amendment 51 offer the opportunity to correct this situation so that confusion is no bar to ensuring that those who commit these crimes are given appropriate sentences. Our amendment (d) to Lords amendment 51 proposes a simple definition of stalking that could clarify the difference between “harassment” and “stalking” between neighbours who behave in unacceptable ways towards each other and the person who fixates on a former partner or someone they have never met but serves to cause them distress.

Our amendment (c ) to Lords amendment 51 would help to ensure that it is open to the criminal justice system to respond to these crimes by making them triable either way, thus introducing the possibility, alongside the lesser sentences the Government are offering under section 2A, of a sentence of up to five years. If the Government will not accept the amendments, they need to set out precisely what constitutes a “lesser” crime of stalking and how it would be distinctive from the crimes they expect to be prosecuted under section 4A. In particular, I ask the Home Secretary to put on the record clear examples of the different criteria they expect to be applied to justify this division and to ensure that criminal justice agencies are able to understand the intent in their proposals.

Finally, our amendment (a) to Lords amendment 52 deals with how these crimes are investigated and with the importance of ensuring that the police are able to act. It would restore a power of entry to the properties of those arrested for stalking without a warrant to ensure that evidence cannot be destroyed. The power previously existed for cases of harassment, but was removed as an unintended consequence of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, and many of us believe that this omission requires attention. Again, I highlight to Ministers the risks they are taking by creating two stalking offences, where one is indictable and the other is only a summary offence. Under their proposals, the police can enter a property to search only if the offence is indictable. The confusion between sections 2A and 4A could mean that officers hesitate in using this power to investigate matters relating to these crimes for fear of not finding enough evidence to meet the “seriousness” test. Seeking this power, and thus the possibility of investigation, would help to ensure that the police would not flinch out of confusion; those committing offences that the Government believe would fall into section 4A could be investigated without the police thinking twice.

Without this power, there is a very real danger of evidence being destroyed as others act to protect those arrested for this offence. The fact that it could take hours to secure a warrant allows that possibility—that time is valuable. Indeed, as we have seen with recent attempts to destroy evidence relevant to the prosecution of those involved in phone hacking, such behaviour is not theoretical. The fact that the police are currently able to search the property of a shoplifter but not to access the property of someone who has been arrested for stalking to seek further evidence—perhaps to see the shrine they have created or computer information on social networks—further reflects the difficulties our police will have with the measures as they stand in ensuring that they effectively protect victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

I will not repeat the constructive comments of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and others on the provisions that all parties have accepted. I am delighted to have been part of the process, but hope that does not give me, as a relatively new Member, a false sense of what can be achieved so quickly by consensus. The Government have moved with speed and with willingness to listen, and I commend their fleetness of foot. I am grateful to them for acting and amending their own amendments. That shows their willingness to listen to the debate and to engage with NAPO and Protection Against Stalking, to which I pay tribute.

The journey does not end here. Once the Bill is passed, it is essential that we get training for police officers and guidance for prosecutors absolutely right and monitor the progress of the new laws. Stalking is emotional terrorism; it is a crime of control, a crime of manipulation and, yes, a crime of violence. It was quite clear from the evidence heard by the all-party inquiry heard these changes to the law were necessary. I started as somebody who was not convinced that the law should be changed, but I ended as somebody who was entirely persuaded. I commend the Government’s amendments to the House.

[Stella Creasy]

We have listened to the debate, but we are still not satisfied on the question of lesser and more serious charges of stalking. We therefore wish to press amendment (b) to a vote.

Question put, That amendment (b) to Lords amendment 51 be made.