Oral Answers to Questions

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady is quite right to raise this issue. Antisocial behaviour concerns everyone. There are a number of powers available to local police, such as community protection notices, and to local authorities—I am thinking in particular of public space protection orders—so I strongly urge her to work with her local authority and, if she is concerned about a particular area, to put in place a public space protection order ahead of bonfire night. Our antisocial behaviour plan envisages strengthening various antisocial behaviour powers. As of next April, we will also be funding every single police force in the country to have antisocial behaviour hotspot patrols. I am not sure whether her force is one of the 10 pilot areas, but every force will have that funding from next April, and the sort of situation that she describes sounds like the ideal use for those ASB hotspot patrols.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The same shops and newsagents on Kilburn High Road in my constituency are constantly targeted by criminals, who shoplift but also intimidate staff. When I raised the issue with the police, they said they receive 1,000 calls a day from central north London alone, limiting their ability to deal with it. What plans does the Minister have to increase the resources to deal with this sort of crime, especially retail theft?

[Chris Philp]

I strongly sympathise with those affected by shoplifting on Kilburn High Road. I was the prospective parliamentary candidate in that constituency in 2010, and I remember walking down Kilburn High Road with Dominic Grieve when a shoplifter ran out of Poundland and straight into our arms. It is a serious issue. The Metropolitan police has a record number of police officers—about 35,000—and I have recently been in discussions with Amanda Blakeman, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead, to increase patrolling in shoplifting hotspot areas and to have a more comprehensive response from the police in terms of investigation, such as always following up CCTV footage where it is available. This is an issue not just on Kilburn High Road but around the country. As I say, we will shortly announce further action, in partnership with police.

Asylum-seeking Children: Hotel Accommodation

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the accommodation of asylum-seeking children in hotels.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone.

In preparation for the debate, I spoke to many organisations that support unaccompanied asylum-seeking children day in, day out. It was impossible not to be moved by some of their testimonies. A children’s rights officer at the Scottish Refugee Council shared this:

“All the children I worked with demonstrated little to no knowledge of systems in the UK prior to arrival, they were completely bewildered. They were also terrified, terrified of anyone they perceived to be in a position of authority. At times that included me, until they got to know me. One girl even asked me if I intended to send her back to her village, where she was at risk of female genital mutilation…

Another girl I worked with had been in Scotland for around two months when I received a call from the hospital asking me to attend, as she was very distressed. She was pregnant. As soon as the doctor left us alone, she broke down sobbing, asking me if the Home Office would kill her for being unmarried and pregnant.”

Those are just a couple of anecdotes, but they speak to the reality of life in the hostile environment for many highly vulnerable children who have reached our shores. Those anecdotes should shame UK Ministers who have used degrading language such as “asylum shopping” or “invasion” to describe people risking their lives for safety and refuge in this country. Many have experienced physical and sexual violence, persecution, torture, human rights abuses and extreme poverty. Their perilous journeys to the UK have exposed them to exploitation, human trafficking and modern slavery.

Two years ago, when the Home Office started to house unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in hotels, we were told that it was on a short-term, emergency basis until permanent placements could be found via the national transfer scheme. It should not be forgotten that such hotels are considered to operate unlawfully: under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, children under 16 should be in the care of local authorities, not in unregulated accommodation where they lack the same protections as other looked-after children. Children whom the Refugee Council in England has spoken to say that they feel anxious, frightened and lonely in the hotels, with no phone to communicate and clothes that do not fit them properly.

Since the Home Office took charge of the day-to-day care of unaccompanied children, at least 4,600 of them—some as young as 10—have been placed in such accommodation. We know that the number is rising, but up-to-date and accurate figures have been hard to come by.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate. She is making a powerful speech on an important topic. In January, at Prime Minister’s questions, I asked about the 200 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who were missing from Home Office-run hotels. Two months later, a response to one of my parliamentary questions stated that 186 of those children—some of the most vulnerable young people in the country—were still missing. Does the hon. Lady agree that if we as politicians are not safeguarding the most vulnerable children in the country, we are letting them down severely?

[Deidre Brock]

I absolutely agree. I will elaborate on this, but it is our moral and legal duty to assume responsibility for those children, and that has been sadly lacking from the Government and the Home Office.

In early April, the Children’s Commissioner for England requested data on the number of children in Home Office hotels since July 2021. I understand—I hope the Minister will bring us up to date—that the Home Office has yet to reply to that statutory data request. I believe that is unprecedented, so I will be very interested in whether the Minister can explain why that information has not been provided and when the Home Secretary will endeavour to do so.

Part of the issue is that the real number of children in the system is obscured by the visual age, or “glance”, assessment process. The Refugee Council report “Identity Crisis” highlights the cases of 233 children that it supported last year, 94% of whom the Home Office wrongly judged to be over 18. They were housed with adults, with no access to support or education and at clear risk of abuse and neglect. On top of that, last year the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration found staff at some hotels without Disclosure and Barring Service checks.

Shockingly, despite repeated warnings by the police that children would be targeted by criminal networks, the Home Office has failed to prevent hundreds from going missing, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) referred to. She mentioned the 440 occurrences that we know of and the 186 children who remained missing as of April 2023. Members from across the House have asked time and again about that, but have received little detail on what action is being taken.

The UK Government’s inability or unwillingness to guarantee the safety of those children has been condemned at home and abroad. More than 100 charities wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister in January calling for the Home Office to stop accommodating separated children in hotels, without delay. UN experts echoed that call in April, commenting that the UK is failing

“under international human rights law to…prevent trafficking of children.”

A report published by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration in October last year recommended that a viable and sustainable exit strategy from the use of hotels should be delivered within six months. The Home Office has no exit strategy; instead, Ministers are doubling down. The asylum hotel accommodation system is becoming institutionalised, and the Illegal Migration Bill—or, as it is known by some, the refugee ban Bill—will empower the Home Secretary to accommodate even more children outside the care system.

Under article 22 of the UN convention on the rights of the child, children seeking refugee status must receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance, but the Illegal Migration Bill is effectively a ban on the right to claim asylum if the claimant arrived in the UK irregularly, such as through trafficking or modern slavery, regardless of their individual circumstances. It will create a two-tier system where the immigration status of refugee and asylum-seeking children overrides their rights as children in the UK. It has been said to me that, in the eyes of the Home Office, they are seen as illegal migrant first, everything else second.

Analysis by the Refugee Council based on publicly available sources and conservative estimates suggests that 45,000 children could be detained in the UK under the Government’s plans. Both the Children’s Commissioner and the chief inspector have warned about the pressure that that will put on local authorities in England to fulfil their duties under the Children Act.

The Bill also includes an attack on devolution, which is unfortunately becoming customary from the UK Government. Clause 19 gives the Home Secretary the unilateral power to extend the provisions to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Support for Black Victims of Domestic Abuse

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which I completely support. In the last few months in particular, it has become even more apparent that we need that training.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Before I begin, I also thank those at Sistah Space for all the work that they have done, and I ought to mention that my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), would definitely have taken part in the debate to voice her support but, as people will have seen, she is recovering from breast cancer.

Some 628 people from Hampstead and Kilburn signed the petition. Sadly, that does not surprise me. Women in my constituency—particularly black women—have told me how scandal after scandal has seriously undermined their confidence in the Met police. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) has made an excellent start to the debate. Does she agree that the disturbing reports of racism and sexism at Charing Cross police station, which she has mentioned, have contributed to a breakdown of trust, and that specialist domestic violence training for the police would be an important first step in rebuilding trust between black women and the Metropolitan police?

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and congratulate her on her work to bring Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe back to this country. What she said is important, and Sistah Space has very much been trying to put forward such training. The fact that so many people across the country have signed the petition, and that trust in the police is low at the moment, shows that now is the time for the Government to introduce some sort of training, which would help the police to regain the trust of many people, particularly black women victims of domestic abuse.

I will now turn to Valerie’s law. In March 2014, Valerie Forde and her one-year-old daughter, Jahzara, were murdered by her ex-partner. He attacked Valerie with a machete and a hammer, and slit Jahzara’s throat. Six weeks earlier, he had threatened to burn down the house with everybody inside. That was recorded by the police as a threat to property rather than a threat to life. The Independent Police Complaints Commission—as it was then—strongly criticised the Met’s failure, and found that officers’ inaction left Valerie alone with the man who killed her.

In Valerie’s case, as in many others, there are real concerns that the police and other agencies have significant knowledge gaps when it comes to the black community and black victims of domestic abuse. I thank Valerie’s daughter, who is in the Public Gallery, for joining us and for allowing me to share her mother’s story. We cannot allow any more stories like that to happen again. I remind colleagues to be mindful of what they say in this debate.

Data from Agenda, the alliance for women and girls at risk, shows that black women who experience domestic abuse are less likely to be referred by police for specialist support. Agenda also found that black women who are supported by Refuge are 3% more likely to have experienced physical abuse and 4% more likely to have experienced sexual abuse than white survivors of abuse. That suggests that black women are more likely to reach Refuge services when they are experiencing the most visible and extreme forms of abuse, and that they may not be taken seriously when they report more hidden and insidious forms of abuse, such as psychological and financial abuse.

Agenda says that barriers to disclosing or reporting abuse for black and minority groups are rarely given sustained attention in policy making. According to Sistah Space, without basic understanding of the experience of black women,

“it is impossible for police officers and service providers to ensure black women are equally protected.”

Valerie’s law is simple: it would introduce mandatory specialist training for all agencies that help victims of domestic abuse. It would enable police officers, relevant Government agencies and domestic violence organisation staff to acknowledge and protect black women in abusive situations, through better understanding of the specific threats and challenges they face. To give a practical example, generally, bruises on black skin do not show the same way as on white skin. That means the crucial physical signs of violence can be missed or overlooked.

Agenda raised the issue of adultification, where black girls are viewed as older than their age and professionals assume they have greater levels of maturity and less innocence than their white peers. As well as informing more punitive responses to black girls and young women, that may reduce professionals’ sense of their safeguarding responsibilities; practitioners highlight that stereotyping black young women as particularly resilient can be a barrier to accessing timely support. It is for those reasons that questions used to determine the level of risk should reflect the experience of black women and girls to better understand the danger they face.

Sistah Space is already delivering training to a variety of agencies, including local authorities. I welcome organisations and agencies that are taking the initiative right now to train their staff in that way, but it is clear that the Government need to take action to ensure that training is provided across the board. Unfortunately, the Government’s response to the petition states that

“the Government does not feel it is necessary to mandate training”

on the specific needs of victims due to their ethnicity. I really hope the Government will reconsider their position during this debate. Only by making that training mandatory, whether in law or guidance, can there be accountability and assurances that agencies are providing it.

Ukrainian Refugees

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 609530, relating to arrangements for Ukrainian refugees to enter the UK.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. This e-petition calls on the Government to waive visa requirements for Ukrainian refugees. I thank Phillip Jolliffe, who I believe is here today, for bringing the petition to the House, and the more than 240,000 petitioners who have signed it and related petitions since it was tabled just over a week ago.

On 24 February, the day on which Russia invaded Ukraine, the Prime Minister said:

“I say to the Ukrainians in this moment of agony, we are with you. We are praying for you and your families, and we are on your side.”

Many of us believe that being on Ukraine’s side must mean, at the very least, allowing Ukrainians fleeing Russia’s bombs and tanks to come to the UK for sanctuary, but the shameful reality is that we have put up barriers at every step of the way and we have turned away desperate, frightened people in their hour of greatest need.

We should have been prepared for this: we had known for months that Russian troops were massing at the Ukrainian border; and with his record of atrocities in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria and Ukraine itself, we had no illusions as to what President Putin was capable of. Indeed, on 20 February, the Prime Minister told the BBC:

“The plan that we are seeing is for something that could be really the biggest war in Europe since 1945”.

The next day, the US ambassador to the United Nations said that

“we will see a devastating loss of life. Unimaginable suffering. Millions of displaced people will create a refugee crisis across Europe.”

Just three days later, the Russian invasion began and so did the long-predicted refugee crisis. According to the UN, about 2.8 million refugees have already fled Ukraine. As President Putin’s hopes of a quick victory have evaporated in the face of fierce Ukrainian resistance, the fighting has only intensified, and however bad the conflict looks from the comfort of watching it on our television and computer screens, humanitarian workers and journalists have been very clear that it is 10 times worse on the ground. Families are struggling to seek safety. Hundreds of thousands have been left without food, water and electricity and with no access to medical care. Elderly people have been left trapped, unable to move. Last week, we will all have seen the horrible images of the maternity and children’s ward in the city of Mariupol destroyed in a Russian airstrike and the reports of children buried under rubble. Authorities were digging a mass grave because the morgues were overflowing. Ukrainians have prepared to escape through humanitarian corridors but have had to turn back, because Russian forces have continued their assault. Which one of us would not want to flee such a nightmare?

We know that Poland has already welcomed about 1.2 million people fleeing that hell across the border. Moldova has accepted 83,000 Ukrainians, which equates to 3% of its own population. Although most refugees will no doubt want to remain in countries close to Ukraine, some are travelling further afield to western Europe. Faced with the continent’s worst humanitarian crisis in living memory, the EU swiftly announced and introduced an emergency plan, the temporary protection directive, to allow Ukrainians to live and work in the bloc for three years. As of Tuesday, about 10,000 Ukrainians had arrived in France and 30,000 in Italy; Germany, which is closer to Ukraine, has more than 120,000. The European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, said:

“All those fleeing Putin’s bombs are welcome in Europe.”

It was a warm, open-hearted message that so many Ukrainians desperately needed to hear. Of course, the UK is no longer part of the EU and has its own approach, based on two significantly less generous schemes.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, who is making a passionate and well-informed speech. I wanted to briefly mention a constituent of mine, who has a friend from Ukraine who fled to Calais with her seven-year-old son. They were turned away and told they needed appointments at a UK visa centre. She finally managed to get herself an appointment in Brussels on 24 March; however, she was told that her son would not be allowed into the visa centre without an appointment of his own, even though he is seven years old, and there was no availability until the following week. Does my hon. Friend agree it is unacceptable to stop parents bringing their children into visa centres? Will she urge the Minister to take action to ensure dependants can share appointments and provide clarity to refugees about the necessity of these appointments, now that the UK Government have finally said that those with Ukrainian passports can apply fully online?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I would go further than it being unacceptable: it is completely heartbreaking to hear these stories and see the way in which many families and people in the most desperate of situations have been treated. We have seen heartbreaking images, so I am more than happy to put that question to the Minister, and expect to hear an answer when he responds.

Going back to the processes that are available, the first is the Ukraine family scheme visa, which allows Ukrainians with select family members in the UK to remain for three years, assuming they can get here.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am afraid that we have run out of time. The allotted time allows two interventions, and we have had those, so I am afraid that that is it.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I have just welcomed Little Amal to Parliament Square. Little Amal is the 3.5-metre puppet which has travelled 8,000 km across the world to raise the plight of refugees and support them. However, I did not rise to speak about refugees. I want to speak about clause 9, which has been mentioned several times during the debate.

I know that these powers to strip people of their citizenship are not new powers. I do not need a lecture about what has happened in the past, and which Government introduced it. What worries me is that the legislation that is being introduced now is making the powers more draconian. Since 2019, we have seen the Government justify the deprivation of citizenship of people who do not possess dual nationality, who were born in this country, and who have not set foot in the country to which they are being returned. The Secretary of State simply referred to “reasonable grounds to believe” that an individual would be eligible for foreign citizenship; that was not even confirmed.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is describing exactly what could have happened to me when I was born. It is likely that if this Bill had been law in the early 1970s, I would have been stripped of my citizenship as a young child. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] Let me just say that, being a middle child, I am not intimidated by the braying from the other side of the House, so I will continue to advance my arguments.

Clause 9 states that the Government do not need to notify someone who has been stripped of citizenship. Is there data from the Home Office which says that the Government cannot enact this law because they have had so many problems reaching people to notify them that they have been stripped of their citizenship? Is there a genuine blockage, or is this being done because it means more power and more severity?

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

rose—

[Tulip Siddiq]

No, I will not give way.

Is this also being done because it means that the appeals process and the decisions that are made will receive less scrutiny? The Government need to think long and hard about all that.

I am also concerned about the extent to which the Government are beginning to increase the frequency of their use of this policy. Between 2006 and 2018, 175 people lost their citizenship on national security grounds, but 104 of those instances occurred in just one year, 2017. If the Government feel that they have to use these powers more and more frequently, that is a worrying trend. Of course dangerous criminals should be locked up and serve their sentences, but if a criminal has been born and raised here and has been radicalised in this country, why do we think it is the responsibility of another country to try that person? That cannot be right.

I know that this will provoke some reaction from the Government Benches, but the truth is that it is nearly always non-white people whose citizenship is being revoked. Before there is any more braying, let me read out the statistics. According to the New Statesman’s analysis of data from the Office for National Statistics, two in every five people from non-white ethnic minorities in the UK are likely to be eligible for deprivation of citizenship. This compares with one in 20 characterised as white. We cannot argue about the statistics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Tulip Siddiq]

Yes, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who made a wonderful speech.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She is making some interesting points, but it is really important for us all to understand that this is not some sort of act of racism. Anna Chapman was a Russian spy with dual nationality and she had her nationality revoked. So I urge the hon. Lady to do the right thing by her old friend Jo Cox and to do the things that bring us together. This is about the good of the nation. It has nothing to do with colour or race.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. What I would say to everyone is that I am not trying here to flame tensions or to play politics. I am genuinely saying that ethnic minorities in this country are in fear of this clause. It has created widespread fear in communities. If we start treating non-white criminals and terrorists as though they are the responsibility of another country and not our responsibility, we will send a signal to law-abiding non-white British citizens that they are somehow less British in this country. I genuinely ask the Government to consider this.

[Alexander Stafford]

I have been listening to the hon. Lady and I am very confused. Can she tell me where exactly in the Bill it refers to people’s skin colour or ethnicity? Otherwise, this is pure scaremongering and trying to create division. The Bill does not reference skin colour or ethnicity. A terrorist is a terrorist, and I do not want them in this country, regardless of their skin colour.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I do not feel that I can even respond to the hon. Member’s comments, but I will say that I agree that terrorists are terrorists. Regardless of their skin colour, they should be tried in this country, because they are British terrorists who were born here, radicalised here and committed their crimes because of growing up here. I really think that maybe the hon. Member should go on unconscious bias training, because I am not sure what else to say to him.

Finally, I would say to the Minister that the Government also have to think about whether the powers that they are bringing in are compatible with this country’s international obligations.

[Sarah Owen]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is perhaps not the best look to persuade people to trust this Government with their citizenship, when they are shouting down Members who are of an ethnic minority, raising concerns—[Interruption.] And shouting down another one. We are raising genuine concerns on behalf of our constituents and their families.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I was born and raised in this country. I do not even need to mention the colour of my skin. I am here representing people who are genuinely worried about the powers in the Bill and how their lives will be impacted as we move forward. I would just say, without taking up too much time, that people in this House should consider that the powers we have in this House will have a severe impact on people who are non-white, are law-abiding British citizens, make up the fabric of our community, do everything right and now feel that they are being penalised.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I know that emotions are running high on both sides, but Members on both sides should try to take the heat out of this. I have heard shouting on both sides and it is really not helping the debate.

Misuse of Nitrous Oxide

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

We have all seen the tell-tale bullet- shaped silver canisters and their balloon companions littering our beaches and parks this summer. On Saturday morning, I saw yet another little pile of littered canisters at every 10 paces or so along Whitstable beach in my constituency.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for her powerful campaign on this issue. As a former councillor in Camden, I am aware of the pressures on councils during this pandemic. Is she aware of the significant cost to councils of removing these discarded containers, and will she raise that in her speech?

[Rosie Duffield]

Yes, I am going to mention that. I know that my council has had so many extra rubbish collections during covid due to people gathering on beaches, which is a significant problem. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that.

Many people pass by these canisters without knowing what they are. Some will have picked them up, examined them and speculated imaginatively about their use. Among young people, the use of nitrous oxide is endemic. Every single sixth-former and university or college student in Britain will know what those silver canisters are. Nitrous oxide—also known as laughing gas, NOS, NOx, whippits, balloons or chargers—is a psychoactive drug covered by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. It can be taken legally, but it cannot by law be sold or given away to others for the purpose of inhalation in a recreational capacity.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

My right hon. Friend is right. After eight years of cuts to frontline policing, the Government have slapped on another £465 million cut by 2022, which we have been warned will cut another 10,000 police officers from our communities. It is completely intolerable.

New clause 6 would release the Home Office evidence—that we know exists, thanks to leaks—to public scrutiny. We know that Home Office officials believe that the reduction in police numbers has led to a reduction in so-called hotspotting and to an increase in violent crime.

But of course this is not just about police numbers; we need a wholesale review of the impact of the Government’s austerity agenda on the vital safety nets that keep our communities safe and the consequent impact on rising crime levels. The now famous example of where we have seen a successful approach is on our doorstep in Scotland, where a 20-year strategic approach was taken to reducing youth violence. That is what is required, as opposed to the Government’s strategy, which uses the rhetoric of early intervention and prevention but represents at most a three-year strategy.

The amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends seek to strengthen and improve the weak legislation before us today. They seek an evidence-based response to the long-term trend in violence that we are witnessing as a result of this Government’s austerity agenda. We hope the Government will accept that much more needs to be done if we are to prevent any more young lives from being needlessly taken and will accept the amendments in our name.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of my new clause 26, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) for her support in that. I also, surprisingly, thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for his support for the amendment, although I am disappointed that he did not say that I am one of the nicest people in the House—perhaps I can prove that to him afterwards.

Some Members have already referred to the Metropolitan police video that went viral showing officers tactically nudging criminals off their bikes in the height of chase. Regardless of whether people support that police strategy, the strength of feeling on this matter is demonstrated by the fact that the video was retweeted thousands of times and appeared on the front pages of the papers. That is because so many people have been, or know someone who has been, a victim of crimes committed by people on mopeds.

Criminals use mopeds because of the element of surprise it gives when attacking the victim, the victim’s helplessness when hit by someone on a moped, and the speed at which the criminal can get away, which makes it particularly effective for theft. Constituents in Hampstead and Kilburn have told me that they are now scared to walk down the street either talking on their phone or showing any of their possessions because they fear someone on a moped snatching those items away. I speak today to give those people a voice and to speak up on behalf of those who believe that the existing legislation to deal with such crimes is no longer sufficient.

Offensive Weapons Bill (Tenth sitting)

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham has made an important speech and I rise to support his proposed new clause 10. At present we seem to have a policy framework that encourages those selling corrosive substances to sign up for voluntary commitments, rather than one that compels them to follow very clear rules on receiving payment. To illustrate this, I looked at the report that the Home Office published in July, detailing voluntary measures to which retailers should commit. They included sensible measures such as agreeing to comply with the Poisons Act 1972, promoting staff awareness about what it means to sell corrosive products, and agreeing not to sell to under-18s products that contain potentially harmful levels of acid. Where appropriate, that would include applying Challenge 21 and Challenge 25 policies when asking for age identification.

Those are very sensible voluntary commitments, but they are far weaker than my right hon. Friend’s proposed new clause, whose measures should have been enshrined in law a long time ago. Preventing the sale of these substances by cash would make it less likely for young people to get drawn into purchasing such products. Presumably, ensuring that payments are conducted electronically would also help the emergency services in any retrospective investigation into individuals who are accused of an offence. The only thing I would wish to add to the proposed new clause is that it may be worth preventing such transactions from being conducted through contactless payments, given that corrosive products are often cheaper than £30 and today’s debit cards, if stolen, can be used for a whole range of purchases without chip and PIN verification.

I believe that the point at the heart of the proposed new clause is that all sales of corrosive substances should be traceable to the individual at the address to which the bank account or credit card is registered. I hope the Government will see fit to support this sensible and reasonable proposal.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Ham for tabling the new clause. This is another one where we have had to conduct a balancing exercise. I very much understand the intention, but on balance we have concluded that the new clause falls a little too heavily on businesses without necessarily having the positive impact that he intends. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn has hit on our first concern: namely, because we can simply tap a card nowadays, there is not necessarily the traceability that there might have been in years gone by. Cheques are rarely used anymore. Even when a person has used a credit or debit card and has entered a PIN code, that does not help the emergency services when a perpetrator has decanted the product into another bottle to conceal it. We have given the proposal some thought, but have concluded, on balance, that it is probably too much of a burden for businesses, given the small amounts of money that some of these corrosive substances cost.

If the substance has been put into another container, there is not necessarily the evidential trail to help the police anyway. Our focus in the law is on preventing sale to under-18s in the first place, and if they carry the substances in a public place then that is an offence in and of itself as well. I regret that I must resist the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

The new clause makes it clear that there is no offence as long as the website removes the video within 24 hours of its being informed about it, which is a practical, realistic measure. It reflects what YouTube says its current policy is, and the same ought to be done by everyone and have the force of law behind it. I very much hope that the Minister responds sympathetically to the new clause.

[Tulip Siddiq]

All Members across the Committee will probably agree that legislation is constantly playing catch-up with the social media giants. It is a fact of life that guides my amendment (a) to the new clause. I do not want to repeat what my right hon. Friend has said. Everyone will probably agree that his detailed forensic examination of the Bill is superior to mine and everyone else’s. I just want to explain why I think the offence he has discussed should come with the liability set out in proposed subsection (4)(a), which my amendment would add to the new clause.

Before I do so, I want to point out that for many the gut reaction to the creation of a new liability, such as that outlined in the amendment, would be concern over free speech. That is something I have heard over many years. There is no doubt that platforms such as YouTube offer a great opportunity for individuals to publish creative content, air their political views and research, and so on. However, as a result, whenever fines or legislation against such websites are suggested, it creates controversy. That happened last year when the German Bundestag legislated to introduce fines of about £45 million for social media companies that did not remove hate crimes from their sites in under 24 hours.

Just to clarify matters, my amendment does not create liabilities for a website’s failure to remove hate crimes, although there are good reasons to support that too. Instead, it is intended to create a sense of urgency among platforms and publishers about removing content in which offensive weapons, as defined by the Bill, are paraded and celebrated. By introducing summary convictions or fines we would be legislating in support of the reasonable assumption that a person who displays an offensive weapon in a threatening manner is acting illegally. It surely follows that those who provide the platform should moderate their content effectively, and should face sanctions for failing to do so.

I think intense concern is shared across the House at the failure of some social media companies—particularly Facebook and Twitter—to act on threatening content. Only last year, Mr Speaker addressed anger over Google’s failure to remove the content of proscribed groups such as National Action, following a Home Affairs Committee exchange in which it promised to do so. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham has expressed concern about associated issues to do with gangs using music videos to threaten their rivals.

The problem has been acknowledged at the highest level of the Metropolitan police. Commissioner Cressida Dick said that

“we have gangs who make drill videos…they taunt each other and say specifically what they are going to do to who.”

That is very worrying, and the police are working closely with YouTube. There has been a significant degree of success, with the Evening Standard reporting that half the violent music videos flagged by Scotland Yard have been removed. That is welcome, as is the fact that YouTube has also developed its own policies.

However, YouTube is far from being the only online platform on which an individual can parade offensive weapons, and legislation should make it clear that allowing the spreading of violent material to continue for more than 24 hours will come with a serious liability.

[The Chair]

I call Sarah Jones, although conventionally one should stand up to catch the Chair’s eye—it is the best way to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Haigh]

Like the other new clauses, new clause 29 has been covered in our consideration of other amendments and in other debates, so I shall not move it now.

New Clause 30

Aggravating factor

“(1) Where a court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under subsection 5(1), and either of the facts in subsection (2) are true, the court—

(a) must treat any fact mentioned in subsection (2) 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.

(2) The facts referred to in subsection (1) are that, at the time of committing the offence, the offender was—

(a) the driver of a moped or motor bicycle, or

(b) a passenger of a moped or motor bicycle.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “moped” and “motor bicycle” have the same meanings as in section 108 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.”—(Tulip Siddiq.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am also aware that everyone wants to leave, so I will try to be as quick as I possibly can be—[Interruption.] At least I have one agreement from Government Members so far.

Subsection 5(1) argues that a person commits an offence if they have a corrosive substance with them in a public place. I tabled new clause 30 to force a court to consider, for the purposes of sentencing the offence set out in subsection 5(1), that the use of a moped is an aggravating factor. This would mean that if the offender was in possession of corrosives while driving a moped, or while a passenger on a moped, they would face a longer sentence.

Aggravating offences, as set out by the Sentencing Council, already include

“Use of a weapon to frighten or injure victim”

and

“An especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim”.

Attacks using corrosive substances are clearly intended to frighten and, as we have discussed, they cause especial physical and psychological effects on a victim. However, I would like to see mopeds, as defined in subsection (3) of my new clause, explicitly listed as an aggravating factor for possession.

I do so for four key reasons: one, an individual who carries a corrosive substance on a moped poses an additional risk to the public; two, corrosive substance attacks committed from a moped uniquely heighten the physical and psychological effect on the victim; three, mopeds are deliberately chosen by offenders to escape detection and conviction; and, four, conviction rates for moped-related crimes are especially low, and explicitly listing mopeds as an aggravating factor will serve as a future deterrent.

In my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn, moped crimes and offensive weapons have wreaked havoc in the lives of local residents, especially the attacks in recent months on two local councillors, who were both coming home from late-night council duty and were both targeted by people on mopeds.

The statistics are alarming, not only for my constituency but for London generally. In Brent, 512 crimes using offensive weapons took place between July 2016 and July 2018, and in Camden in the same time period 394 crimes using offensive weapons took place, which represented an increase of 16% between July 2017 and July 2018. In June 2017 alone, Camden suffered 1,363 moped crimes. In 2017-18, there were over 20,000 moped-related crimes in London.

The correspondence from my constituents at the height of these crimes has often been desperate and angry in equal measure. I will quickly give two examples from the many, many emails that I have received on this topic. Jessica from Belsize Park said:

“I have never written to my MP before but I am growing increasingly concerned about the spate of violent moped attacks taking place across London. I had a near-miss last week and almost didn’t report it to the police as I felt that there was nothing they could or would do.”

Gaurav from Hampstead Town said:

“I am frankly appalled at how inaction is emboldening gangs to strike with impunity. This has to stop. I feel scared about my family and children walking in the area.”

[Sarah Jones]

I apologise to the Committee for what will be a brief intervention; I just wanted to stress the point that my hon. Friend is making. Last week, I met a couple who had been walking along the street in Croydon with their young daughter, and two people on mopeds who were wearing masks came up to them and held a knife at the neck of the daughter, who is about seven years old. Fortunately, in the end nobody was hurt and the police are doing what they can, but my hon. Friend is making a really serious point. This is a real issue and it would be very useful if the Minister could consider accepting the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I am sorry to hear about what happened to her young constituent; it must have been quite frightening. That also leaves a huge impact afterward as people think about what happens as someone is speeding past. I know that now when I walk past any moped I quickly hide my phone; I think many of my constituents have started to do the same as well. I am hardly going to be able to fight anyone off—I am aware of my strengths there.

Returning to my point, I have had dozens of emails similar to the ones that my hon. Friend describes, and they all describe the sense of fear created by those committing offences under subsection 5(1) from the back of mopeds. Many of my constituents see the use of a moped in such a circumstance as unduly reckless, negligent and therefore threatening, and would naturally agree that perpetrators of those offences should face tougher sentencing in the courts.

I believe that the recent case of Derryck John illustrates the threat of carrying corrosive substances on the back of mopeds. Mr John was convicted in March after being found guilty of carrying out six acid attacks against moped riders in less than 90 minutes. He sprayed his victims with a poisonous liquid, leaving one man with 30% sight loss in one eye. He stole two mopeds and tried to take another four from their owners before being arrested. Mr John was able to cause such significant damage to his victims in such a short period of time precisely because he was using a moped.

Coming back to my constituency, it is worth saying that moped crimes have plummeted about 80% since their peak. That is because of the innovative responses from the Metropolitan Police: Operation Attrition, the increase in unmarked Q cars, the use of spray-tagging of mopeds, motorcycle patrols and tactical collusions have all proved effective. However, the figures for detection and conviction rates for moped crimes remain astonishingly low. In 2017-18, detection rates for offences resolved through a sanction stood at just 2.6%, which means that more than 97% of moped criminals escaped justice in that year. That is appalling and unjust.

My new clause may not dramatically reverse that picture—after all, criminals must be caught before they are brought to trial—but it will definitely act as a deterrent to those who would be so reckless as to possess offensive weapons, particularly corrosive substances, in a public place on a moped. There can be no excuse for it, and the process of sentencing should reflect the additional fear and risk posed by the use of a moped in such instances. That is what my new clause is intended to do, and I hope that Government Members will see fit to support it.

[Stephen Timms]

I rise briefly to support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn and to welcome the fact that she has raised this in the Committee.

There is certainly a close link between acid attacks on one hand, and the use of mopeds on the other. I will highlight one particular group of victims here, which is moped delivery drivers. I think the series of attacks that she referred to was aimed at a group of drivers, a number of whom I have met. In particular, I pay tribute to Mr Jabed Hussain, who was himself a delivery driver with UberEats and was the victim of one of these attacks. He has since joined the International Workers Union of Great Britain to bring together the very vulnerable people who work delivering meals and all sorts of things around London. There are large numbers of them now, but they are pretty exposed, and if people come after them with acid they are in a dangerous situation.

When I last spoke to him, Mr Hussain had not yet been able to get back to his work because of the trauma he had suffered as a result of the attack inflicted on him. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue and I hope the Minister will be able to respond sympathetically to what she has said.

--- Later in debate ---

The aggravating factors in those guidelines are non-exhaustive, and courts can and do consider other factors relevant to sentencing. I am cautious when it comes to the imposition of such statutory aggravating factors, not least because it could be too restrictive, in terms of only applying to mopeds and motorcycles. The papers recently reported an awful case in which someone walked up to a car and threw acid in. As a prosecutor, I would find it difficult to differentiate the criminality in that case from others. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to support the clause and I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw it.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I appreciate the Minister’s response, and the sympathy she has expressed for victims. I, too, commend the work of the Metropolitan police, but I do not feel that the legislation is strong enough to tackle the kind of crime I have described. The conviction rates are too low not to press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Offensive Weapons Bill (Ninth sitting)

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Public Bill Committees

It seems that at least the basic data will now be assembled in the Home Office. I hope that the details I have specified in new clause 1 and in my remarks will be included in the data that is published, and that the Minister, drawing on that information, will be able to agree at least with the sentiments behind the new clause and to publish annually the data that it identifies.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes.

I support much of the Bill, which is why I rise to contribute to the debate on new clauses 1 and 25. If we are to ensure that vital clauses protecting young people are effective, it is of huge importance that the Government proceed with transparency and that Parliament receives a report from the Secretary of State on progress.

My experience of the High Speed 2 Bill is defined by a lack of redress for my constituents, because there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to report on the construction process. I realise that I raise my angst with High Speed 2 in this House at every opportunity, but I genuinely believe that the same principles apply to this Bill.

New clause 1 proposes introducing a report that would shed light on the number of corrosive substance attacks that have taken place in the past five years, not only providing important historical data to establish crime trends but clearly illustrating the scale of the challenge that the Bill seeks to correct, as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham. Any such report would also detail the location of corrosive substance attacks, which would be a positive outcome for my constituency. For one thing, the Metropolitan police would be in a better position to allocate resources more effectively across the worst-affected London boroughs.

New clause 25 would mandate the Secretary of State to report on the causes of youth violence with offensive weapons. Attacks using corrosive weapons are despicable, not only because of the physical ramifications but because of the devastating psychological toll on victims. As we have repeatedly discussed during our consideration of the Bill, acid attacks do not heal quickly and the results are often visible for a victim’s entire life.

When processing the gravity of such attacks, I often ask myself how the perpetrators end up engaging in such awful criminality. It is not sufficient simply to point to drugs or gangs, even though those factors are huge. It must be the job of Government to investigate the root causes of such violence and explain whether or not existing legislation is making the problem worse.

In that regard, new clause 25 covers several vital policy considerations. I will focus on subsections 2(a) and 2(b)(i), which cover the reduction in police numbers and the reduction in spending on youth services. Since 2013, in my constituency, Camden has suffered the reduction of 23 constables, 30 detective constables, 28 sergeants, 10 detective sergeants, five detective inspectors, seven inspectors and two chief inspectors. As I have said, in the first few months of 2018 London suffered double the number of fatal stabbings than in the same period in the previous year and, as I have also said previously, half of the victims were aged 23 or younger. Given those numbers, it is surely incumbent on the Secretary of State to investigate whether or not the corresponding reduction in police numbers has acted as a contributing factor to the despair that we have seen on the streets across London.

Let me turn to subsections (2)(b)(i) and (2)(b)(iv) of new clause 25, which would mandate the Secretary of State to report on the reductions in local authority spending as a cause of youth violence. I looked at the Department for Education’s data, which shows that over the last 12 months councils in England were expected to have spent a total of £460 million on youth services. The BBC reports that that compares with £418 million the previous year and £622 million between 2014 and 2015.

Efforts are being made locally to mitigate the national picture. For example, in my constituency, Camden Council’s community impact scheme offers £1.6 million to local organisations to address youth offending, among other social problems. If the Secretary of State reported to the Commons on whether such efforts were tangibly reducing youth violence, it would help local authorities such as Camden to target their spending better. I think that all hon. Members from across the House wish to see that from local government.

Supporting new clause 25 does not mean giving legislative approval to the notion that reductions in spending or police numbers prompt young people to turn to offensive weapons. Instead, I believe it would satisfy a very clear duty of the Government to consistently measure their policies against points of concern for the public and, in the case of this Bill, to establish how we prevent young people from falling into the clutches of violence.

Offensive Weapons Bill (Seventh sitting)

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 6th September 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Timms]

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn was about to intervene on me.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

A constituent of mine, Robert from West Hampstead, wrote to me saying that

“As a self-employed cabinet maker and a wood carver, I rely on having such tools for my business and, indeed, having them delivered to my home and place of work from time to time.”

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although his amendment is a sensible one, it is necessary to ensure that the self-employed are not unduly caught up by this well-meaning clause?

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend makes a very fair point and I have no doubt that it was instances such as that that lie behind the framing of the clause as it stands. Indeed, I myself have been contacted by a company that sells tools for hunting; I think that is right. That company asked whether my amendment would exclude the delivery of knives to sole traders—people working from home.

I must say that I have got a bit less sympathy for people who are selling knives from home than for people like my hon. Friend’s constituent, who are simply obtaining tools for their own use to pursue their occupations. Of course, if we went down the amendments 46 and 48 route, whereby such things could be supplied only to a registered business address, that would avoid the difficulty to which my hon. Friend rightly refers. The amendment 47 approach would exclude delivery to people such as my hon. Friend’s constituent, and I accept that that would be difficult to justify. That is why I made the point that I do not think that either of the two approaches I have described is the solution to the problem. The Government are right to want to restrict sales of very dangerous weapons to people’s homes. There is a bit of a loophole here, and I hope it can be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

Again, if it meets the criteria of the Bill, it will. If it does not meet the criteria, it will not. I will not go into a long speculative list of items because someone will always come up with another item that has a blade. The idea of a gang member walking down the street with a Magimix is a new one in my portfolio. I will not list items, because the wording is there in the Bill.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I understand the Minister does not want to go through an extensive list of items, but if there are household items that in the past have not had to be delivered to a post office and could be directly delivered to a house, there must be some merit in clarifying that a legislative change will mean that people who have normally had such items delivered to their houses can no longer have that. It is about public awareness, which is what I think my colleagues are getting at.

[Victoria Atkins]

It is the job of business to have that conversation with their sellers. We know already that online retailers such as John Lewis, which has signed up to our voluntary code for businesses in trying to prevent the sale of knives and corrosive substances, have stopped selling knives online because that is a business decision they have taken. For other sellers, when somebody puts an order in, they will have that conversation and say, “I’m sorry; you will have to go to the post office to pick this up.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 16, page 15, line 26, at end insert “for a particular lawful purpose.”

This is a probing amendment to allow debate on the appropriate scope of defences under Clause 16.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. Given the vigorous debate we have had on clause 15, clause 16 is also important, because it provides the defences to the offence that we have just been discussing. One of those defences is simply that the seller did all they reasonably could to avoid delivery to residential premises, but the other three set out circumstances in which the law will deem it justified to sell and deliver to residential premises and a defence can therefore be made.

The Minister referred to a balancing act. That is the test that we have here. On the one hand, there is clearly a concern—we have heard it today—to ensure that the defences are wide enough to protect legitimate businesses. On the other hand, there is also a concern to concern that we do not draft the defences so widely that they can be abused to avoid culpability, or in a way that means that the offence set out in clause 15 becomes worthless.

The amendment is designed to provoke discussion about whether we have that balance right. It asks a couple of immediate questions. First, why is there a particular purpose test in clause 16(3), which relates to sellers who have adapted bladed products in accordance with specific instructions, but there is no particular purpose tests in clause 16(2), where a bladed product has been designed or manufactured in accordance with specific instructions? It is not immediately clear to me why the purpose of either the adaptation or the design is relevant to one but not the other.

Secondly, does there need to be more restrictions on the range of purposes that will allow for the defence to arise? All that is required now is that it is a particular purpose. I am guessing that it is implied in law that the purpose must to be lawful—for example, adapting a blade for the particular purpose of making it more efficient as a weapon does not amount to a defence—but I would appreciate confirmation.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the section could be more specific in scope. For example, if historical re-enactment is to be included as a defence, as it is in line 35, surely it will be necessary to have a comprehensive list of bladed articles associated with that activity, so that carrying them is not classified as an offence. Does he agree that the clause could benefit from greater detail and clarity over exemptions for reasonable, law-abiding people, such as the self-employed artists in my constituency who have been lobbying me on this?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

That is a perfectly legitimate question. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say to that. It begs the question: to what extent is there an onus on the seller to scrutinise the claimed purpose of the adaptation, be it for historical re-enactment or anything else? Is it simply a case of whether the adaptation was consistent with the claimed purpose, or is there more involved?

We have already heard about the other defence, and the specific purposes set out that would make it acceptable to deliver to residential premises—sporting purposes and historical re-enactments. It gets to the point where I wonder whether, in an ideal world, we might simply provide an exhaustive list of purposes for which it would be acceptable to deliver. I appreciate that that would not be easy, or without risks, but it might be a much clearer way of approaching the challenge. Obviously a list could be added, perhaps by statutory instrument.

The amendment flags up concerns about whether the defences will really do the job of protecting from prosecution the businesses that we do not want to be prosecuted, while ensuring that the provisions cannot be abused by those who want to do harm.