Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Steve Brine and Iain Duncan Smith

3rd reading
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. The truth is that I have had a lot of discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor about this, and I feel that he is very sympathetic. I am sure that he can speak for himself, but I hope that he will give an undertaking that the Government will return to this matter in this Bill, at least by the time it is in the other place, and make whatever changes are necessary to the laws and regulations in terms of criminal justice. I have a high hope that that will be the case, but I will leave it to my right hon. and learned Friend to make his position clear when he gets to his feet.

[Steve Brine]

I want to back up my right hon. Friend, having put my name to these amendments. The reason that this measure needs to be in this Bill is that we have seen such a huge rise in the number of pet owners during the pandemic. I have not seen the amount of casework on this issue in 11 years that I have seen in recent months.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right, and that is the point I was trying to make earlier. There has been a huge upwelling of anger and concern about the theft of dogs in particular, but pets in general. These three new clauses highlight that particular issue. It is not a simple thing or something that can be ignored, and it is quite interesting to look at what has happened to prosecutions.

Trade Bill

Debate between Steve Brine and Iain Duncan Smith

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine]

I am tempted by my right hon. Friend’s amendment and I am listening to him very carefully, as I always do. At the moment we have a form of public health activism, where experts make decisions and it is then very difficult for politicians to disagree with those determinations. What does he say to that form of judicial activism? What would be the likelihood of this House disagreeing with such a determination? That is the concern some of us have with his amendment.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I agree. I put the question back to my hon. Friend, as I have to other hon. Friends. If, on balance, the courts decide—we have faith in our courts—that this is likely to be genocide, I simply ask why would we be doing a trade deal with a country that is guilty of genocide. We may not wish to disagree, but the power still remains. The pedantic point put forward by the Government was that it was all about loss of power. I say that that is simply not the case. It would certainly not be in our amendment, because it is very specific that the Government have to do that.

On the vexatious claims point, the High Court is quite capable of dismissing anything on that level. By the way, this is the highest bar that can be set for any accusation. To try to wipe out an ethnic group is the No. 1 crime in the world. The High Court knows that and would dismiss anything that was vexatious. There would be no point in doing otherwise—that would demean it and wreck its reputation.

The Government say that the amendment, being limited to genocide, is practically unenforceable. Well, maybe that is true, in which case we need to look again at the UN charter, but the reality is that right now this is unenforceable—nobody out there can bring a charge of genocide, because they are blocked. We come back to the same point: we argue about genocide, and the Government say they do not want to do deals with people who commit genocide. I have huge admiration for my right hon. Friend the Minister. We have worked very closely together on many things. However, I noted his language when it came to accusations of the sale of the NHS. He said, “Not and never will be sold.” When it came to China and a trade deal it was, “No plans to do one yet.” We can be emphatic from the Dispatch Box when we want to be. We can make absolute statements when we want to, but when we do not—I have been in Government—we simply do not. That tells us everything we need to know. The Government need to have that check on them.

I conclude by saying that the Government cannot have it both ways. If they say it is for the courts, then the question is which court and the amendment says that. Overall, I have to say that the amendment is not anti-China, but it is anti-genocide. We need now to stand tall. We left the European Union because we did not want to accept judgments from a court over which we said we did not have power. We did not come away because we disliked our courts. I think we have the best courts in the world, and I think they can make this judgment. My question, therefore, is this: what is it about? Why did we leave? So that we would stand tall and have a global vision about the morality of what we do. I say to my colleagues and to those on the Front Bench that tonight is about more than just pettifogging. Tonight is all about shining a light of hope to all those out there who have failed to get their day in court and to be treated properly. If this country does not stand up for that, then I want to know what would it ever stand up for again. I urge my colleagues to vote to keep Lords amendment 3 in the Bill.